MINIMUM BULDING SITES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14531, 19 November 1910, Page 8

MINIMUM BULDING SITES.

FIFTH OF AN ACRE DELETED.

! SIZE LEFT TO LOCAL BODIES. | ■ ; [BY telegraph.—special correspondent.] Wellington, Friday. The House of Representative® went into committee to-night on the Public Health Act Amendment Bill, which gives power to local authorities to fix the area and frontage of building allotments. Mr. Lang (Manukau) did not consider that local bodies should have power to prescribe a minimum area. All health purposes would be served if the minimum area were prescribed. He moved to amend clause 2 by deleting the 'words giving local authorities power to fix the minimum frontage. Mr. Buddo : In another part of the Bill I will make provision for those who have already purchased. Mr. Lang said a man with an acre of land could sell two frontages and keep half an acre at tho back with an approach to it He would have twice the building area prescribed by "the Bill, but he might clash with a by-law fixing the minimum frontage. Mr. Massey (Franklin) said he agreed with the fixing of a minimum building area, but not with tho fixing of a minimum frontage. He had a telegram from a well-known man in Auckland, referring to a property of an aero that had only a 20ft frontage. Mr. Wilford (Hutt) said that under the Bill a section 62ft by 132 ft could not be built on. He asked the Minister to leave it to local authorities to fix the minimum area. Mr. Bollard (Eden) said Ho agreed that over a-fifth of an acre was a suitable building area in a district Unit had not a sewerage system. Mr. A. Myers (Auckland East) agreed that one-fifth of an acre was a fair area. In Auckland syndicates were at work subdividing suburban land, and some restrictions should be placed on their operations to prevent overcrowding. The' aspiration of the local authorities in Auckland was to make Auckland a garden city, and authority should bo delegated to the local authorities to fix the minimum building area.. The interests of the public would be capably conserved by the local bodies. He welcomed the Bill as a first step in town planning. Tito amendment by Mr. Lang, to prevent local bodies fixing the minimum frontage, was rejected by 36 votes to 33. Mr. Wilford (Hutt) then moved as an amendment that the proviso making the minimum area of a section one-fifth of an acre be deleted. The Minister accepted the amendment, which was carried. Mr. Buddo moved an addition to clause 2 (which gives local authorities power to fix minimum areas and frontages), exempting allotments on plans of subdivision already deposited at any lands or deeds registration office. Mr. Mander (Marsden) moved to add to the end of this sub-clause the words "or approved by the local body and Land Transfer Department." Mr. Massey, in approving of this amendment, said he knew that in ono suburb of Auckland there were blocks of land cut up and roaded and ready to place on the market. Unless some such provision as suggested by Mr. Mander were added, the whole thing would have to. be gone through again, and great expense would | be caused. Mr. Buddo eaid he would not accept 111 is amendment. Mr. Massey : Then you will cause al- j most a revolution in the suburbs of Auck- ! land. On a division the ayes were 34 and the j noes 34. The Chairman (Mr. Graham) gave his { vote for the noes, and Mr. Mander'e! amendment was rejected. I Finally, the Minister accepted a. compromise, and the clause was passed in this form :—"Nothing in this section shall apply to any allotment of land shown on the plan of subdivision deposited at any lands or deeds registration office, or local authority, prior to the passing of this Act." Mr. Herries moved to add a new subsection to clause 2 as follows:"In the case of a subdivision of any allotment having not less than the minimum frontage, it shall be a sufficient compliance with this Act if a right-of-way of not less than 15ft is provided for each subdivision of such frontage, provided that each such subdivision is not less than the minimum area." Tho clause was rejected by 38 votes to 27.