COURT STRESSES NEED FOR OBSERVANCE OF BUILDING BY-LAWS

Wanganui Chronicle, 4 October 1949, Page 6

COURT STRESSES NEED FOR OBSERVANCE OF BUILDING BY-LAWS

j “It must be understood that neij ther of these penalties are precedents for the future. If there are any further cases they will be I dealt with on their merits,” com- ; merited .Mr. S. S. Preston, S.M., in the Wanganui Court yesterday when imposing a fine of £l, with ; costs amounting to £2 12s, on a ' builder, F. M. Pritchard, who had previously admitted a charge of making alterations to a house at Mowhanau without a permit. A j similar fine was imposed on the I owner of the property, Dorothy . Stewart, who had pleaded not guilty to a charge of failing to remove portion of a building erected within five feet of an adjoin-

ing site. Costs amounted to £4 19s. The informations were laid by the Waitotara County Council and both charges concerned breaches of the county building by-laws in respect of alterations to a dwelling at the beach settlement of Mowhanau, better known as Kai Iwi. The cases were heard a fortnight a go and adjourned till yesterday. Mr. N. M. Izard, for the county, said yesterday that the first charge was preferred against the builder, who had pleaded guilty. Counsell recalled that the Court had reserved decision on the question of penalty till it had heard the evidence against Mrs. Stewart Under the county by-laws, however, the builder had a clear duty to obtain a permit. If he made any alterations to a building without a permit, he did so with his eyes open. As the Court had suggested two weeks ago, this matter had since been referred to the councils aid Mr. Izard.

In reply to the magistrate, Mr Izard said that the by-laws provided for a (maximum penalty of £lO against a builder. The charge against Mrs. Stewart, however, was a continuing one and in such cases the by-laws provided for a maximum penalty of £5 a day.

Mr. R. S. Withers, for Mrs. Stewart, said that in view of the attitude taken by the Waitotar a County Council he did not propose submitting any argument about the validity of the by-laws. Had this matter been‘properly represented to the council and the Building Controller, no trouble would have arisen. The work was started, however, before it was realised that » permit would not be forthcoming. The roof had been removed and the job nad to be completed.

Mr. Withers added that this was the first prosecution of its kind brought by the council. It was obvious that these provisions were not generally known and counsel submitted that the case should be treated as a warning. The magistrate: I take it that the County Council wants publicity given to the case and the need for observance of the by-laws? w

Mr. Withers said that since the bylaws were framed houses which did not conform to the regulations had been built at Kai Iwl. Apparently the object of the prosecution was to stop these breaches of the by-laws. Mr. Izard: This by-law applies not only to alterations to existing buildings, but also the erection of new ones.

The by-law stipulated that no external wall should be situated within five feet of a boundary, but in this respect the by-law required fresh consideration, said the magistrate. Five feet appeared to be too small a distance and should be increased, or the provision of brick or concrete walls considered. A definite fire hazard existed.

There was an anomaly in the bylaws in that they referred specifically to a dwelling not being within five feet of a boundary, but any other type of building could be erected on a boundary, said Mr. Withers, who added that the by-laws were not effective.

The magistrate said that taking all the circumstances into consideration, he would impose a fine of £1 on each defendant. He did not want these penalties to be taken as a precedent, however, and builders could not go aTiead and do this type of work without a permit.

If the Building Controller took no action in the present case, then the facts spoke for themselves. Had proper representations been made to him a permit may have been granted. Pritchard "was fined £1 and was ordered to pay Court costs 12s and solicitor’s fee, £2 2s. Mrs. Stewart was similarly fintd, costs amounting to 12s, solicitor’s fee £3 3s, and witness’ expenses, 12s.