BUILDINGS WITHOUT PERMITS

Chronicle (Levin), 13 September 1947, Page 4

BUILDINGS WITHOUT PERMITS

SEVERAL OfFENDERS, $EFQRE • LEYIN CQURT Charged in -the "Magistrate's Court, Levin, before " Mr. A. M. Qpulding; S.M., with erecting a garage on their property in Stanley Street, Levin, without the necessary pprmit,. James ' Eeclc§, • was fined' £5 and his father, James Eccles, Senr'., was fined £1. Court. cpsts ^in both" aases were= 10s. Appearing fpr b.pth defendan.ts, Mr. isf. M. Thomson entered a ple'a of guilty on their behalf. Prosecuting for the building cpntroller, Mr. H. R. Cpopqr, of Palmerston "North, said fhat Eccles, Junr., liad builf the garage for his father without having first ensured that a permit for the worl| had b'een obtained. The breach was not a seriQus Qne, however, as not a. great deal of material had heen used, but some timber had beeh p'urchased. For defendants, Mr. Thomson said that in this case there w'qs no attempt to„ flQut the law. Mr. Eccles had obtained a permit for the building of a house in Stanley Street, and a garage had been included in the specifications. After tiie house had been completed, the builders had put the base for the garage down and had disappeared, as they had often done during the cpnstruction of the building. Thinking that it might be some time before the builders returned to complete the contract, EGcles, Junr., had ' started to * erect the garage himself with a 'certain amount of timber he had on hand, continued Mr. Thomson. After he had nearly cpmpleted it, a friend had asked him if he had obtained a permit. He had then gone to the builder, who had stated that no permit had been issued for the garage. He had later used malthoid for the roof. this being an old piece which had been lying in his father's shop for some time. Called by Mr. Thomson, Eccles, Junr., confirmed these facts, adding that he had no knowledge that a permit had not been obtained by the builder. Cross-examined by Mr. Cooper he admitted that he had later apphed for a permit, which had been refused. Judgment was given as stated above. • Erection of Shed Charged under the same regulations with ereGting a shed without a permit on land adjacent to his home in Queen Street, Alfred Hastedt, builder, o'f Levin, was fined £2 10s. Costs amounted to 10s and solicitor's fee £1 ls. . Appearing fpr defendant, Mr. Thomson said that there were unusual circumstances attaching to

tfie case in that the building was purely a temporary one, not bufit i on defendant's own property. The i action of defendant arose from an : desire to protect his supplies of timber and other material used in his ioinery shop in Weraroa. A fire 1 had broken put in the shop recently, ' and had fortunately been discovered early. His immediate thought was to spread his supplies so that : if fire did occurr again it would not all be lost. He had many contracts involving work for returned j men, and this might he seriously held up should a fire pccur. The building had been built ex- * clusivelty of sqcond hand timber, and the roofing material. was malthoid sheeting which had previously been qsed as a floor covering, said ' Mr. Thomson. Wall cement ooard had also been used, which had been rejects from his own private home. These were damaged and would not have heen fit for residential purposes. The building was built in such a manner that it ' could be dismantled at any tirne. It was used principally for the storing of timber, but when the stocks were low defendant often used part of it for housing his business vehicle. . Questioned by the magistrate, Mr. -Thomson §aid that the building was one mile from the factory. S-umming up, the magistrate said that the circumstances were different. He realised that the defendant was trying to be helpful as there was a definite fire risk, but he should nevertheless have applied for a permit. Charge Against Builder Charges- were also preferred by che ouiiding controller against IrevOr Stanaen, builder, of Levin, and Ian Taylor, farmer, of Heatherlea, in respect of a shed builr for che latter for which no permit had oeen obtained. Appearing for defendants, Mr. Thomson said that in regard to tne Duilder, Standen, he had previously dealt only witli the Levin Borough Council in regard to permits, out on -this occasion he had been required to apply to the Horowhenua County Council. He had paid the "5s fee for the submission of the permit and had repeived a reeeipt xpr this amount. Tiie acceptance qf the 5s by the county. council had left him with the impression tnat che permit had been granted. He nad kieen agxeeably surprised at getiing it tnrough without delay, and had proceeded to erect the , shed. Later the 5s 3d h^,d feeen retyrned to him by the c-ounty council in the form Of a postal note, but with no explanation other than a cyclostyled fprm, whicli yead "beg to enclose postal note for 5s 3d iri Rayment of your account." This was the first communication he riad repe|ved frpm the coupty council. Appearing in perspp, defendant confirmed this staterqent. Cross-examined by Mr. eooper, defendant admitted that he had I'eceived a permit from the council fpr a house on the same property Mr. Cooper: pid you npt get a ietter from the'bdilding controller Palmerston North on June 12, stating that your applicatiom for a permit had been ref used? pefendant;- Yes, I did, but the

building was. up by thpn. Mr. Cooper: C)n May 28 you lodged an application for a peripit and yet you had the building corppieted ■ by June 12, although yoti pleaded guilty to committing' the jlfence pn June 23. . Convicting defendant and entering a fine of £10, Mr. Gpuldihg stated tl^at, being a builder, defendant should have a knowledge of thq necessity for obtaining a perpiit. The owner of the property was also convicted and fined £1. Court costs of 10s in each case were allowed, and also solicitor's fee Qf £! Is. ___/ ,