THE COUNCIL DEEP

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12548, 10 September 1926, Page 9

THE COUNCIL DEEP

BUILT WITHOUT PERMIT MAY BE DENIED CIH SERVICES IS PENALTY A DETERRENT Councillor M. Luckie raised an import tant question at the City Council iMt night, as to how far the by-laws of the city could be defied if one was prepared - to pay a comparatively small fine, but at 'the same time he pointed out that in doing so such an offender was liable to be-denied the services of the city in the yay of drainage and water. . The by-laws committee reported that an application has been received for an inspection to "be made of a dwelling' erected at Tally street, Silbirnie, for which no building permit has yet been gram ted. Councillor Luckie said a builder had erected a house without .getting the necessary permit, , and was fined .£5 and coats. He ‘made' application for permis-' sioh to erect a dwelling-behind another dwelling, but the engineer did not report favourably.. The committee, decided to visit' the site, and found'the building is mw.jJ. erection- it was pointed eut that the work eould not pro'eedw ithout the consent of the council, but the man.dsfied them and satd £g. was the buiblihg, aod. to went on witlßit. For the sake of a fine —tint teffCrty Louiwil couw refuse ban' permiesiqer to eennect up with the drainS 5f r fflfnsßSi*SS®tfhgS,« ehould have it or net. He would like publicity to be given to the matter, for tf it, van thought that eueh practices could M oewtnrned-at-the eoet of a mere" fine they would be eet at naught, and they should 'know thatthe council could refuse a permit to occupy or to supply water ana drainage. , - ~ tsn't nee -it if. they have no water or drainage. , ’ Continuing. Councillor Luckie said the matter had Since been taken up by the solicitor, tp. eee if th#obj«fffon could be waived, but no' actaoneould be taken as the solicitor had not' been before the: committee “I want the public l to b* awaiw: ofrthe fan that the 1 Council is ' determinedf to tut- the strongest possiblettgifepKjiß all instance! to see that, any. pmew, ?ueh as adopted by this., man.instance, are not.allowed.,to •uccmauL..lt 'is a patter that -will “ a T®.,» JO wtewy oasidersd by the council. There''are capes in; other cities wherb-jnbn have been ordered to pull down' t&e'whole building. Whether this will be rdone in this instance- or not I should like the utmoet pubjicity given to i it.. . Any man who chooses to erect • dwelling-house .-In defiance of the council’s instructions and Without complying witn the by-laws of the council is liable to have all city .services refused to him." NO COMPROMISE Councillor J. Bums said if the council had power -toinuict a penalty it should ns- imposed:; Councillor Semple said it was an insult to asfc the- committee, oc the council to \ visit a building which had. been erected In defiance of the by-laws- The council should consider so compromise in a matter.which interfaced with the building regulations. Thg council snould refuse the inyitaiion, and as the building had been erected'm defiance of the bylaws, he 'should'he refuted the city services and make it useless to him, Councillor Glover I understand this la no| the first case, in connection with tbi-i building. The Major said .ihs thought the council should, not be weak in this matter, The ooqiuiittee did visit the site, and received' scant’ courtesy.