FIVE BREACHES OF BUILDING CONTROL LAW

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 12, Issue 92, 8 September 1948, Page 5

FIVE BREACHES OF BUILDING CONTROL LAW

Builder's Home Exceeds Permit In the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., convicted A. L. Luke, builder, of five breaches of the building . control regulations, all concerning one house, built for the defendant’s own use. Fines and costs totalled £6O 8s 6d. On behalf of the District Building Controller, Mr K. L. Sandford proceeded against Luke for (1) Building 70 square feet more floor space than his permit provided for. (2) Building .15 inches higher than was authorised in the permit. (3) Using copper for the spouting. (4) Using corrugated iron in contravention of the regulations. (5) Concreting the walls and floors of the bathroom, shower toom and lavatory. Represented by Mr G. Otley, Luke pleaded not guilty to'four-'of- the charges and guilty to the third one. Evidence was that he had applied in the first place for' a permit to provide accommodation for himself and his wife, and for a daughter, a son-in-law, and their three children. The permit had been granted on that basis, but the son-in-law and his family were at present living at Edgecumbe. Defendant said they or other members of the family would share the house with him and his wife. Concerning charge 2, that of exceeding the height permitted, it was pleaded on Luke’s behalf that there was a depression in the section and he had had to put the side walls 15 inches' down into the ground to get a' level floor. His Worship went and examined ■the house in question. Giving his verdict, he held that the excess floor space had been proved. Concerning charge 2, he said he did not think anyone could suggest that what had been done had been done in accordance with the plan. There had been a substantial alteration. Charge 3 had been admitted, and charge 4 had been proved. Charge 5 was substantially proved. 11 He considered that all could have been covered in one accusation—that the defendant proceeded with the building other than in accordance with his permit. Therefore, he felt it would be unfair to inflict five separate penalties as for five separate buildings. He inflicted these penalties: (1) . £lO and costs £3 13s. (2) £2O and costs £3 13s (Mr Walton commented he considered this the most serious of the breaches). (3) £l, costs £2 12s (a technical breach only). (4) £l, costs £3 13s. (5) £5, costs £3 13s. .Witnesses’ expenses, £6 4s 6d.