Terms Of Building Permits Exceeded At Ohope & Heads

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 13, Issue 30, 8 December 1948, Page 5

Terms Of Building Permits Exceeded At Ohope & Heads

The District Building Controller (Mr B. S. Barry) proceeded successfully against F. L. Williams (Mr L. Buddie),and W. H. Righton (Mr G. Otley) for exceeding thfe terms of their building permits in connection with private homes. 4 Williams admitted four charges in respect of a house he had built at Ohope: (1) That the floor space exceeded that approved by the controller by 256 square feet. (2) That he used galvanised spouting and •downpipes without permission to do so. (3) That he built a concrete terrace not provided for in the permit and (4) That he built a concrete fishpond and paths, also in contravention of the regulations. He was fined a total of £25, with £l3/10/costs.

Mr Barry said the excess floor •space had been obtained by increasing the length of the building at Tioth ends and adding an area at the back. The permit had been issued •bn condition that galvanised spouting and downpipes were not used; though the* terrace had been asked for, it had been exprdssly excluded from the permit; nor had the fish pond and paths been included. Mr Buddie, for the defendant, submitted;that the building was not by any means a luxury one. In fact, the all-in cost did not exceed £1 a square foot. His client bad actually been canvassed by two firms to buy cement, of which they had at that time an excess on hand. It had become apparent, too, in the course of building, that more ■concrete than at first anticipated was needed on account of the sandy ground on which the house was placed.

Foundations Too High Righton, charged with building a foundation wall 6ft high instead of the permitted 4ft 6in and with using galvanised iron spouting and downpipe in contravention of his permit, -was fined a total of £ls, costs £5/4/-. 'He also pleaded guilty. Mr Barry explained that the bouse at the Heads, as originally planned, had concrete foundation -walls 20 inches high, but that was found to be impracticable on tb; r section, so a variation of the permit

was applied for and granted to allow for ,4ft 6in walls ,in front and 18in walls at the back. The unauthorised rise to 6ft in front allowed a garage under the house. Wooden spouting and downpipe had been specified in the permit.

Mr Otley explained the high front wall by saying the builders would otherwise have had to interfere with a rock toe at the back and had thought it risky. His client had omitted to apply for a further variation of the permit, which would probably have been granted. So far as the spouting and downpipes were concerned, the only water supply was from tanks, and it had not been thought that wood would do the iob properly.