DEVON STREET BUILDING

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1929, Page 12

DEVON STREET BUILDING

OBJECTION UNDER BY-LAW INTENDED USE AS FISH SHOP. WISH TO PREVENT FAMILY USE. “With reference to the two-storied reinforced concrete and brick building we propose to erect' on sub-allotment 2, section 916, Devon Street, plans of which have already been submitted, we learnt with considerable surprise only on Saturday morning that the building permit might be withheld on the grounds that the proposed building, if erected, would contravene certain by-laws,” wrote Air. J. R. Cruickshank, on behalf of Collett and Co., Ltd., to the New Plymouth Borough Council last night. “We certainly do not wish to erect any building that would be an offence to' the eye °or a danger to the health and general well-being of this town. On the contrary, in the proposed building we have gone out of our way to embody features 'that in the matter of appearance, lighting, sanitary and general arrangements are about as perfect as we can make them. We do not desire any special favours; the plans of the proposed building speak for themselves, and if a permit can be granted, all well and good; if not, we suppose we shall have to put up with the costs and inconvenience incurred to date and consider the erection of a less elaborate one-storey type of building.” Inspector Day reported that the letter referred to a proposed two-storey concrete building to be erected next to Derby and Co.’s premises. The building was ‘for a fish shop and dining-room, but had living accommodation overhead. It was not more than 20 feet wide, whereas section 585 of the by-laws required that buildings used for residential purposes should be erected on a parcel of land with at least a 30ft. frontage to a street. In a business like this, where men were on the premises late and early, it was an advantage for single men to live on the premises. The proposed premises were not suitable for a man with a family, as no separate sitting room or kitchen accommodation was provided. It was for the council to decide whether the by-law should be waived. Cr. F. Amoore thought the council should discourage the practice of living in Devon Street business premises. The Alayor said the question was whether the council should encourage the building of the ordinary single-story lock-up shop or a higher type of building with living accommodation upstairs. Cr. Amoore: Is it possible to stop a family going to live there? It is all right for a single man, but suppose we grant the license and that in six months’ time a family moves in, where would we be then?

The Alayor said the council should not hold back a permit if the building were of one story. It’ was proposed to lease the building for a 10-year period. “It seems we are opening the door very wide,” said Cr. Amoore. “Before very long partitions might be put in for a family.”

The Alayor: But the building will be all concrete. Cr. Amoore: But that does not mean that partitions could not be put in. The Alayor said it was for the council to decide. Personally, he felt it was preferable to have a two-storied structure and so encourage a larger type of business premises. Cr. J. W. Darby moved that the permit be granted. INTENTION OF BY-LAW. The opinion that the intention of the by-law was wrong was expressed by the town clerk (Air. F. T. Bellringer). He considered it was not a question of whether there should be 20ft or 30ft frontage, but -whether there were proper conditions for living accommodation. It was conceivable that a frontage of 20 feet might have sufficient air space at the back.

Cr. G. M. Spence said that on general principles he was opposed to living quarters being permitted in the centre of the town, where there was a possibility of a family moving in. It would be different if the council were in a position to enforce a guarantee against this. There was the likelihood of tenement conditions arising, he continued. The plan under review provided for three bedrooms and this made it possible for a family to occupy the place if it were erected. The ideal of home buildings nowadays was that families should be provided with sufficient air space and adequate playing area for the children. If a guarantee could be given against a family living in the place, the council might give a permit for the building. “It is rather too much to expect a man to stay single for 10 years,” said Cr. Stainton. He added that he could not see how a guarantee could be given effect to. The council had either to grant the permit or turn the. proposition down. Observing that he could not see how the council could obtain a guarantee, Cr. Amoore said he would oppose the motion. The council had set its face against families being allowed to live in the business area.

“I hold somewhat the same views as the previous speakers,” said Cr. R. JPentecost. Collett and Co., he said, were no doubt acting in good faith, but the position was that, according to the plan, the building would have accommodation for a family. Such conditions were not ideal for children who would be playing on the street half their time.

Cr. F. J. Hill: Is the required air space provided? The Alayor: Yes. Air. Griffiths pointed out that the fish shops throughout the town were run by single men. This type of business was open till 11 p.m. and the men preferred to live on the premises for their own convenience. He agreed with the town clerk that it should be a question of air space and not of frontage. Cr. Spence asked whether it would be possible for the top story to be used for some other purpose besides that of a dwelling. The Alayor: There is no demand. “We have no guarantee that the place will always be used as a fish shop, remarked a councillor. "Lhat is not likely, as all the fittings are for a fish shop,” said the Alayor. Cr. Stainton said he did not want to prevent the erection of a better class, of shop in the town, but it was a question of principle and the council must be consistent. He suggested holding over the application for a week to enable councillors to look further into the matter. He moved that the question should be considered again at the next meeting of the council. Cr. Spence seconded the amendment, which was carried after the origina motion had been withdrawn.