TOWN PLANNING ACT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23511, 27 May 1938, Page 7

TOWN PLANNING ACT

INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSES SUPREME COURT RULING (Pra United Press Association) AUCKLAND, May 26. A decision in favour of the Auckland City Council was given by Mr Justice Callan in the matter of an originating summons to declare the interpretation of the provisions of the Tbwn Planning Act, 1926, in its relation to the application by New Zealand Breweries, Ltd., to the Auckland City Council for a permit to build a new malthouse on the property fronting Seccombe’s road and the refusal of a permit by the City Council under the powers vested in it by Section 34 of the Town Planning Act, 1926. and its amendments, Mr James (Wellington) argued the case for the plaintiff company, and Mr Stanton for the defendant council.. The question put to the court was whether the Auckland City Council, having failed to prepare and submit to the Town Planning Board by January 1, 1937, a town planning scheme as required by the Act had power at any time after the date mentioned to refuse consent to the erection of any building upon the ground that the council deemed the erection of such building would be in contravention of the scheme if it had been completed and approved. Counsel for the plaintiffs properly admitted, said his Honor, that on the literal reading of Section 34 of the Act, the City Council had the power it claimed, but he argued that, as a condition precedent to the continued possession of such power, there must be read into Section 34 a condition that the local authority had complied with Section 13 by preparing and submitting its own planning scheme before January 1,1937. After having traversed argument by counsel for the plaintiff on this view, his Honor said he was not satisfied that Section 13 limited the literal meaning of Section 34, or that Section 34 read literally was repugnant to the general purview of the Act After considering further arguments for the plaintiffs, his Honor said the argument founded upon hardship .and injustice seemed to tell as much against the contention of the plaintiff company as in its favour The company had the dght of apneal to the Town Planning Board, which it had not exercised, and also the right to compensation if injuriously affected by the operation of the scheme finally aooroved. "Finally.” his Honor stated, "I see no sufficient reason for reading Section 34 otherwise than literally and. so reading it, the question out in the origination summons is answered in the affirmative —that is, in favour of the defendant corporation.”