A BUILDING PERMIT.

Thames Star, Volume LVII, Issue 16425, 24 February 1925, Page 5

A BUILDING PERMIT.

FOR ALTERATIONS TO SHOP. BREACH OF BY-LAWS. OWNER A CONTRACTOR PRESENT A special meeting of the Thames Borough Council was held last evening in deal finally with the business of a permit for alterations to certain premises in Pullen Street. Messrs. A. Bryan and R. Twentymon were present on the matter. The Mayor said the meeting had been specially called to hear what these two gentlemen had to say. Mr T. K. Hay. assistant Borough engineer, was also present as building inspector. Air Bryan read the following statement: In explanation of this matter I think it is best to start at the beginning and give the facts as fully as possible so that the Council may properly understand how the present position has arisen.

As it was desired to repair and adapt the premises formerly known as Hayes’ Tea-rooms, for the purpose of an office, a schedule of work requiring to be dune was prepared by me, together with a plan. This L handed to Mr Twentyman to inspect the building to see if additional or other work would be advisable to carry out what

was wanted. After inspection, Air Twentyman advised making a new front-door frame, covering the ceiling with beaver-board panels, and one or two other minor matters, in addition to the work specified, and he gave me a tender. When he did so, I said to him: "1 want to be quite clear about this tender. Docs it cover everything and include getting the necessary permit and the fee payable in respect of it.” Air Twentyman said: "A permit is not necessary. The job is practically all repairs, and is all interior work, and a permit is not required.” I told him that 1 thought a permit should be obtained, but he maintained that permits were not required for such work here.' I said: "Well, the main thing I am concerned about is that this price covers everything, and that you complete the job for this amount without further trouble or expense to me,” and we left it at that. As 1 had expressed my opinion on the matter of a permit, 1 did not feel I was concerned further about it. In such a job if a permit is required the builder almost invariably attends to it, and from the by-laws it would appear that the person doing the work is the person responsible for any breach. The work specified and tendered for was all quite within the by-laws, as the plan and schedule shows, and at no time did I suggest to the builder or any of his men that anything outside the scheduled work should be done or anything that would break the bylaws.

Work commenced about Thursday, and on Friday afternoon, I think, I went into the building to see whal was being clone. Some lining had been stripped off the south wall, and I was surprised to see about half-a-dozen new studs in position, and the wall being boarded up again. T asked the foreman why this had been done, and he said there had been a leak in the 1 spouting, which had evidently thrown the water from the roof against the wall and had rotted some of the studs, and that he considered they ought to be replaced. 1 was not at all pleased ■about what had been done, as it. was a breach of the by-laws, and I knew there was a party who was likely to make trouble over it for me. Had 1 known the position before the new studs were put in I should not have authorised it, on any account and risked this trouble and unpleasantness. I would have effected what was wanted in a perfectly legitimate way, and without breaking the by-laws, by building an interior wall or partition immediately inside of the sound portion and the original wall could have been left as it was. This is an expedient which is well known and commonly used in towns with similar bylaws, in cases where land values are not very high or space very important. On the Saturday morning I saw Mr Hay in the street. He said work would have to stop, and asked me to knock the men off. T told him the work was a contract, and 1 had no right to interfere with the men, so he knocked the men off himself. As r was anxious that the work should not be held up 1 looked for Mr Twentyman to get him to see Mr Hay and arrange what was necessary for work to proceed, and finally went with him to Mr Hay, who said a permit must be obtained. Mr Twentyman said it was not customary on such a join which was nearly all repairs, but finally agreed to put in an application. Mr Hay said: “You put in your application first thing on Monday morning, and it will bo fixed up immediately.” I took it. that a permit would issue on receipt of the application without further trouble. On the Monday I saw work proceeding, hut thought nothing of it, as f had nu doubt the permit had been issued. Late in the afternoon I heard that work had been again stopped. Mr Twentyman was seldom on the job. I saw him there only once. The men were working from the plan and specifications, which wore on the job all the time. I want. t<> make it clear: Firstly, I dn not consider the obtaining of a. permit was my responsibilitp; secondly, tlie work specified and tendered for involved no broach of the by-laws; thirdly, I neither authorised nor knew of any broach of the by-laws untilafter a, breach had occurred. Under the circumstances I feel keenly the very unfair and unwarranted remarks made concerning my part in the matter. which remarks have been published in tlic press. .It is regrettable that a councillor without proper knowledge

of the facts, should have jumped to the conclusion that I was attempting to iiout the Council and it by-laws and defy the building inspector. I had no knowledge of, or part in, anything to which objection has been taken whatever. Mr Twentyman is here to speak for himself, but I am convinced that lie did not apply for a permit because he genuinely believed none was necessary. Further, I construed Mr Hay’s remark on the Saturday to the effect that a permit would be fixed up immediately, as meaning that if the application went in a. permit would issue at once, and Mr Twentyman thought the same, and I believe that it was on that assumption that work re-started on the Monday. To the best of my knowledge Mr Twentyman was not aware that work was being- done in breach of the by-law till after it had been done.

In the last four years the Council’s by-laws have been repeatedly and openly waived in many respects, not excepting those by-laws relating to repairs and alterations in the brick area. The Council itself has disregarded its own by-laws in altering the front wall of the wooden lire station next door. In the solicitor’s office across the street an addition in wood has been allowed to the side of a building in the brick area. Messrs Miller & Son’s Shortland office front and side wall was altered when Mr Miller was Mayor, and large alterations were made to the front of Parker’s Auction Mart, and to the side of the same building contrary to the by-laws. By-law No. 19 has been waived a number of times by the Council allowing buildings to be altered for occupation by more than one occupant, e.g„ Galloway’s, Carthew’s, and the new house opposite the Catholic Church. Numbers of other examples can be given.

I claim that I am entitled to the same treatment as other owners who have been allowed without fuss or trouble to carry out reasonable alterations without the by-laws being strictly enforced against them. The position that has come about has not been caused by me, and in view of all the circumstances It would be grossly unfair for the Council to pick on me as a scape-goat. The work on the building is more than half-com-pleted, and the delay that has taken place has already proved a source of loss to both the builder and to me. The work remaining to be done is all quite legitimate and within the by-laws, and I ask that the Council allow same to proceed. Mr Twentyman said Mr Bryan’s statement covered all the ground. He did not think it was necessary to have a permit for internal work. He did e not know there would be stud trouble at all, and did not allow for it in his estimate. He had no intention of flouting the by-law. Cr Miller asked if Mr Twentyman knew the work was being done. Mr Twentyman said he did not know that such work was necessary. Cr Morley asked if it was usual to do internal work without a permit. Mr Twentyman s:;id that from his experience this was done. In answer to the Mayor, Mr Twentyman said that his reading of the bylaws allowed interior work. The Mayor said By-law 11 said a permit had to be obtained for any work. Had a good job been made of the work of the outside wall? • Mr Twentyman said the weatherboarding next to Blessing's was bad, but otherwise the job was a good one. Mr Bryan said Mr Twentyman had tendered for certain specified work only, but had to make the best of a bad job. Mr Bryan had seen plumbers about fixing the plumbing and making the space between the two buildings weather and water-tight. At this stage the special meeting ended, and the Council went on with routine business. Notice of Motion. In accordance with his notice, Cr Morley moved: That clause 21 of the Borough Building By-laws be amended by deleting the words “and not to the studding or plates, excepting the ground plates and lower six inches of stud,” and adding, in place thereof, the words, “and particulars of such buildings.’ He said this did not cover exactly what he wanted. He thought the real grievance was the repair of buildings in the brick area. t’r Christie seconded the motion. Cr Miller said if there was a desire for the by-law to be modified, then it could be referred to the Streets Committee to confer with the building inspector to report to a. future meeting.

The Mayor said Or Morley’s motion would prevent any concession in building alterations at all. He had tried to fix it in with the by-law. but could not. The by-laws were a little bit premature, and they would make it easier to persons if they gave them the right of erecting a now building altogether. He understood the brick area had had the effect of not making the town progress. If so, they should study the whole question. Or Hardman agreed with the Mayor. He felt the by-law was keeping l ho progress of Thames back. He knew of three places that would have been erected if it had been pennissahle to build in wood. Some practical men should have been consulted when the Council drew up that by-law. Cr Morley’s motion did not go far enough. Cr Allen agreed that the by-law was unsatisfactory. They were apeing nigger towns. He did not believe, however, in having by-laws and not following them. Cr Morley asked if this consideration were. to be given, flow about the

present requests for permits? ‘ Wouldthey be delayed? Cr Bush said he was in favour of some relaxation, but be thought the town should be built in brick. There were some buildings that were falling over, and their owners could not afford to re-erect in brick, but they could perhaps repair in wood. He would like a modification of t.he by-law. At this stage the Mayor read several applications for building permits. Those outside the brick area were held over. Mr Twentyman’s application them came under review. Cr Christie thought it ought to be granted. The Mayor said he would like to see an allowance made. Cr Bush asked if this came in con-, diet with the by-law. The Mayor replied that if it were not for the repairs to the wall there was no conflict with the by-law. Cr Bush asked if the committee could meet early and, go into the matter of the alteration of by-laws and decide. By that time the owner would he ready to say what else he wanted doing. It was pointed out that certain legal formalities had to be taken into consideration. Cr Bush thereupon moved that Mr Twentyman’s application be granted, as applicable to interior work. Cr Morley seconded, and this was carried. Cr Miller moved that the matter of the modification of the building bylaws be referred to the Streets Committee and to engineer to report to the npxt meeting of the Council. This was seconded and carried. Cr Miller moved that the building inspector Vie commended for the attention he had given in the Council’s interest in the matter of building alteration. This was also seconded and carried.