BUILDER HEAVILY FINED

Chronicle (Levin), 4 November 1946, Page 4

BUILDER HEAVILY FINED

SREACBES OF REGULATIONS Pleading guilty to two" breaches of the huilding regulatiohs,. fities totailing £22 10s were ifflposed on Edward Henry Webber, a builder, in the Magistrate's Court, Levin, on Friday by Mr. A. M. Gduldihg, S.M. The charges were, firstly, that on August 20, having obtained a permit for construetionai Wdrk, he proceeded otherWise thaii , in accordance with the permit, and, secondly, that oil or about July 20 he pi|oceeded with constructioilal work without first obtainihg a permit. Mr. N. M. Thomson conducted the prosecution for the Building poiitroller, while Webber was represented by Mi\ j. P. Bertraih. Mr, Thomson said the case appeared to be one bOrdering on defiauce of the eontroller. in regard to the first charge, Webber had applied for a permit to build a house which had beeh granted. Neither the'pians or specifications disclosed that a garage was included, but one had been erected. Dealing with the second charge, Mr. Thomson said that Webber had consti'ucted a cohcrete fence alohg the front of the sectioh on which the house was built without haVing obtained a permit. Mr. Thomson produced a copy of a letter to Webber, cleai'ly pointing out that he could not erect a concrete fence or lay down concrete paths and drive. * For defendant, Mr. Bertraih said that Webber obtained a ton of cement in May last and had nowhcre to store it biit in an opeA shed with sacks nailed oii the sides. Due to the rain the cement had become lumpy and was deteitiorating, so he had used it for this work. The timber utilised. in the garage had been pieces. which he "had rejected for work on houses. Mr. Bertram said Webber should have first applied to the controller for permission to use the material, but he was a builder in a small way and was, unawatfe of all the provisions o'f the regulations. He had not known it was necessary to have the controller to say that material was siich that it could be rejected. Counsel submitted that there had not been any attempt to flagfantly break the regulatiohs. The magistrate said Webber Was a man in the building industr.y and should knoW the necessity of conserving supplies. In the face of being forbidden to do the work he had proceeded with it. The regiiiations itequired him first to obtain a permit. It was a serious matter and called for a heavy penalty. H^ theh fined him £20, with 11s costs, on the first Charge and £2 10s, with 10s costs, on the second, Solicitor's fee of £1 ls was allowed against defendanL