APARTMENT HOUSE!

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXX, 19 June 1936, Page 7

APARTMENT HOUSE!

ERECTION OBJECTED TO BY NEIGHBOUR BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED AND WITHDRAWN BYLAW TO BE AMENDED' On the Ist June the Nelson City Council issued a permit to Mr Pugh, contractor, of Christchurch, to erect an apartment house in Trafalgar street south for Mrs A. T. Leeds. At a meeting of the Council on the 4th June a letter was received from Mr J. H. Ralfe, solicitor, for Miss Worley whose property adjoins the section upon which it was proposed to erect the new building, protesting against the issue of the permit on the grounds that it was contrary to the provisions of the building bylaws. The Council then decided to withdraw the permit, the necessary notice of which was forwarded to the solicitor for Mrs Leeds. At a special meeting held subsequent to the ordinary meeting of the 4th June, it was decided to amend the building bylaw. In the meantime the builder did not receive notice of the withdrawal of the permit and the building was proceeded,with. At last night’s meeting of the Council a further letter of protest was received from Mr Ralfe, the Council then deciding to serve notice of the withdrawal to the builder. PROTEST AGAINST LACK OF ACTION In the course of his letter Mr Ralfe said: “In view of the position that has arisen relative to the above I am constrained to again place on record my strong protestation at the lack of action taken by your Council. Your Council is fully conversant of the position at present. “As a result of my previous protest your Council saw fit to take the initial steps to rescind the portion of the bylaw dealing with tenements and apartment houses. Your Council notified me as solicitor for Miss Worley that the permit previously issued had been withdrawn. I understand notice of the withdrawal of the permit was sent by you to Mr Harley, solicitor for Mr Leeds. “What is the net result of the steps taken by your Council as a result of my protest? The portion of the bylaw to be rescinded is still in existence. Though you have given notice of withdrawal of the permit the work is still proceeding. The carrying on of such work is clearly in breach of, the existing bylaw. It is a continuing breach from day to day. To all intents and purposes the permit has been withdrawn. Your bylaws state definitely ‘that it shall be lawful for the City Engineer to serve notice in writing upon the person erecting’ etc. It may be that Mr Leeds or his solicitor may hold that notice from the Council is insufficient. In view of such a possibility I ask that your City Engineer give the requisite notice immediately. ....

“Is there not a duty on your Council to the community at large? An act done is either according to or against the law. W T hy discriminate in cases of the individual? “I ask that steps be taken immediately to see that operations on the building cease immediately. It is ludicrous that an act done in breach of your Council’s bylaws continuing from day to day should be permitted. What interpretation will the public give to such a state of affairs? “Failing immediate steps being taken I will have no alternative but to take steps to institute the requisite legal proceedings to fully protect my client. “I enclose for your information a copy of a letter sent to the Town i Planning Board.” LETTER TO TOWN-PLANNING BOARD ' • In the letter to the Director of Town Planning Mr Ralfe outlined the position leading up to the withdrawal iof the permit and urged the Town Planning Board to take steps under section 34. The letter proceeded: “I am aware no scheme has been subjmitted or entered upon by the City Council, but this is a case of coming j within the scope of section 34 in that it is against the principles of town I planning and the amenities of the neighbourhood. My clients strongly protest against the construction of such a building as is proposed. There is strong opposition from residents in the locality to the erection of such a building and the opinion in the town is very strong on the attitude adopted.

“The area of the section is just slightly over the required area for an ordinary dwelling house yet through the action of the City Engineer and the Council—in effect five dwellings will be constructed on this small area of land. The flat roof will be used as a drying green and recreation area and I submit that such a building, apart from any legal aspect, is detrimental to a true residential locality and against the principles of Town Planning. “There is no need for congestion in Nelson. Doubtless, apartment houses and flats are necessary—they help to overcome the shortage of houses and no objection can be urged, provided they are constructed on a reasonable area and are in keeping with the general lay out of the particular residential locality in which they are to be built. Such is not the position in the present case. “In the schedule to the Act it is clearly indicated what the local authority should consider in formulating ; its scheme of town planning and I submit the Nelson City Council have [not only acquiesced in a breacn of their own bylaws but have failed to t carry out what they are bound to do [under the Town Planning Act, 1926. | “I would ask for the immediate 'intervention of your Board in this matter. The building is progressing [and the menace of the new building I is increasing each day. The City Council will not move to prevent the breach of the bylaws and the intei ests of residents in the locality are being jeopardised thereby.” SOME MISUNDERSTANDING Councillor J. Fitz Gerald said it did not appear that section 34 of the Town Planning Act had any application in Nelson. The Mayor (Mr G. L. Page) said there had been some misunderstand-

ing regarding to whom the notice of, the withdrawal of the permit should j be delivered. The Council instructed that it be sent to Mr W. C. Harley, solicitor for Mrs Leeds, but find now that it should have been sent to the builder, to whom the oi’ig'inal permit j was issued. The Council thought the builder would receive the notice through the owner’s solicitors. Councillor Fitz Gerald said it was usual to serve notices to the solicitors of parties concerned. It was pointed out that Mr Harley was not the builder’s solicitor. “ALL NELSON FLATS ILLEGAL” Mr Page explained that the builder was a Christchurch man, who would be in Nelson to-day when the notice could be served on him. As the bylaws were at present, all the flats in Nelson were illegal owing to lack of land. There was .not one building used as flats, or a house in which more than one family lived, which complied with the bylaw. The new bylaw would comply with the Public Health Act. Councillor Fitz Gerald moved that notice of the withdrawal of the permit be served on the builder. The motion was seconded and carried. It was also decided that Mr Ralfe be informed of the Council’s action, and that the Council would consider any further action at a later date.