EDGECUMBE’S FUTURE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 10, Issue 29, 25 September 1946, Page 4

EDGECUMBE’S FUTURE

ERECTION OF NEW BUILDINGS DECISION EXPECTED SHORTLY .At the last meeting of the Whakatane County Council, held on Tuesday, a letter was received from the Surveyor General stating that the Committee appointed by the Minister of Lands to investigate and report on the future development of Edgecumbe had, after meeting representatives of the Council, arrived at a number of general conclusions on questions of development, that it considered would be acceptable to all parties.

One aspect which the Committee was concerned about, the letter continued, was the number of new buildings which were being erected in Edgecumbe, and although it was realised that the Council had no specific powers to refuse the issue of building permits, it was suggested that it might be possible to dissuade owners from proceeding with building operations within five chains of the river banks and on low-lying areas on the east and west banks south of the railway line. It was anticipated that finality in regard to the future development of Edgecumbe would be reached at an early date. The Council discussed the matter briefly in Committee, a final resolution being reached to the effect that any future applications for building permits within five chains of the Rangitaiki River at the Edgecumbe township, should be referred to the Building Inspector for action.

a new water supply to meet the “immediate” requirements of Hillcrest residents and the new installations embraces the construction of a 10,000 gallon reservoir, pipes, valves and installations amounting in all to £390. I don’t wish to be sarcastic, when I suggest that some of my soldier clients ought to change their ideas about living down where I propose building, being minus power an water, and get up on Hillcrest where all facilities can be provided, and I presume no guaranteed deposits are asked for.

Of course, Mr Barry can quote law and regulations, but I consider after all the noise during the war period about “nothing was too good for the boys who were away fighting,” that it does not make common sense, that any returned man should be minus a roof because of regulations. Mr Barry should know as well as I do, that the by-laws contain nothing about allowing temporary accommodation, and only recently when faced with many returned men buying and living in baches built by me, did many of these men get temporary permits to occupy same. Seeing these offenders of the law, could not even get a dog kennel to live.. in, let alone a house, after fighting for democracy.

I think any builder who defied the existing laws and - regulations, did a service to the homeless community. Therefore, if Mr Barry includes me in his list of offenders, I challenge him with his knowledge of law to take legal action and I will personally defend such action. Common sense and a desire for justice, tells me that any returned man who is homeless must be provided with shelter, and when the law and regulations stated that only permanent structures were the order of the day, and no permits could be obtained for temporary accommodation, and people were camping in the Domain, it was the duty of every citizen to do something in the matter apart from talking. As an observer, I notice that people who are well housed and well fed, talk a different language to those people who are homeless, but reverse’ the position, and their flow of English would be entirely different.

As one who volunteered for war number one, I desire to ask Mr Barry what he has done, to see that homeless soldiers were provided with shelter. Did he make any effort to break down the existing laws and regulations. As the town’s leading citizen it was his duty to see that no one should be homeless, whether it be soldier or civilian. Yours etc., STAN EVANS, Builder, Valley Road.

(With all due respect to our correspondent’s lengthy discourse on dubious facts, we feel in. duty bound to point out that the Borough Council did not and does riot forbid the erection of temporary hutments for any person desiring a roof. AIL it required was a simple application for an ordinary housing permit to protect itself. This, Mr Evans has consistently failed to do and as a result must be prepared to take the consequences. Ed.)