COMPLIANCE OR CHAOS

Chronicle (Levin), 14 March 1949, Page 4

COMPLIANCE OR CHAOS

S.M. Censures Builder For Regdation Breaches / ' ' The building regulations must he complied wi'th, particularly by tnose in the trade, otherwise .cfuos wouTJ -result, saici "r/Ir. JL M. Goulding, SM., when inipysing fines totahmg: £21 . on .Arthpr Pexhrum 'Bahnht,-1 builder, of Le -7in, in the Maglstrate's Coui't on Friday. Dexendant, who was represented by Mr.' N. M. Thomson, was charged 'with three oifehces under the Emergency Building Regulations in respect 6f a dwehing built by him in McKenzie Street. For defehdant, Mr. Thomson said that he realised there might be technical offences in respect of some of the charges, but wouid formally plead not guilty to each on behalf of his client in order that his case could be fully presented. Def endant had applied for a permit in 1947 to erect a dwelling ip. McKenzie Street and was granted one for a building of 1220 square feet, said Mr. G- I- McGregor, of Palmerston North, representing the Building Controller. When the permit had been granted, the usual stipulations had been made that the building must not exceed this area and that no cement drives or paths could ibe laid. When the building had been inspected last year it was found that it exceeded tne permitted fioor space by 70 square feet, brought about by what had been shown on the plan as a porch having been built in. A concrete fence had been ereeted along the complete frontage and a full concrete drive laid. A building for which no oermit had - been grant-

ed had also: been ereeted and appeared to be in use as a dwelling place. It was 25 ft. 9 ins. long and 18 ft. wide. In a letter to the department, defendant had stated that this building was of a tempora'fy nature, and was being used for living quarters while the main dwelling was being constructed and that he intended to use the majority of the timber ln ,the finishing off of his dwelling.

Mr. M. D. Harvey, an employee m the office of the Building Controller, Palmerston North, gave evidence on these iines, detailing the work done in excess of the permit. He jsaid that Barnett's explanation had been that" the porch had been built in later because it was found to be exposed to,, the weather. Defendant had alleged that the local building inspector had known of the •erection of the additional temporary building, and had raised no ob jection. - To the magistrate, witness said that had the porch been shown in the plan as being w$,lled in, then it would have been regarded as additionah fioor ^spaee-.' - — •« &*>■ The magistrate: I would gather that defendant has increased his living space by walling in the porch, but not the fioor space. Not Shown On Plan Ln regard to the additional building, witness said it had .not been shown on the plan and he did not consider that the materials used in its construction would be suitable for use in the new dwelling. The laying of the drive and building of the cement wall had , nnt. hppn niithrYrispd

In repiy to a question by Mr. Th jmson, ILvwey s.tid that ne could' not recali any i.'fting of the reslrictions on cement dunng Christmas, 1S47, neither did he have any knowledge of similar walls -being ereeted by the owners of two neighbouring -properties. His instructions had been to inspect Barnett's pro-perty only. ■ His client was one of those who had assisted in overcoming the housing shortage and he fiad been building houses over the past fou-r years meaning to occupy them himself . In every .case he had ereeted a temporary dwelling while the house had been in the course of erection, said Mr. Thomson. This was the first occasion on which he had been able to occupy the house himself. There had never been any complaints previously to his client erecting temporary dwellings and using the material in the main structure when it reached a stage where it could be lived in, continued' Mr. Thomson. In the present case he had adopted that practice, and his client had now moved into the house and demolished the temporary building. The majority of the timber had gone into the new* diwellirig and what was left oyer had been sold to another person building a house. He would submit that the ofience was a technical one and it would be unfair for a penalty to be imposed, continued Mr. Thomson. Defendant had to have somewhere to live while he was building and .-had taken this way out, a way

which had not previously been bbjected to. He would also submit that the -building in of the porch was trivial. In the1 original plan the porch had been shown as having a roof and fioor. The additions did not mean much in the way of material, as much of it was in windows. The concrete fence and drive h&d "been made at a time when the defendant honestly helieved that the restrictions on cement had heen lifted ^over the 1947 Christmas holidays, as they had been during the same period of the previous year. The cement ha ta been in his possession for from six to eight months and was going hard and lumpy. Defendant had endeavoured to sell it to a plasterer, but had been told that it was o-r-no use for that purpose. It .would have been wasted had defendant not used it. Called by Mr. Thomson* defendant gave evidence • along these

lines, stating in regard to the porch that he had intended to build a low wall around it and the alteration had been to take it up. to the» roof. He would estimate the additional expense at about £12. This was a case where defendant' was an experienced touilder wno s'hould know that strict compliance of the regulations was necessary, said Mr. Goulding. In regard to the porch he should have been sure of his position before walling it in. The same applied to the use of cement. *The fact that he tried but oould not sell the cement to the plasterer did not justify his using it. For failing to comply with the: xegulations in regard to "the walling in of the porch he would impose a fine of £10. ■ He regarded the erection of the temporary structure as not a serious matter, as he realised t'hat building took a long time these days, and it was reasonahle, that defendant had to.have somewhere to live in the intervening time. He would therefore impose a fine of £1. In regard to the use or cement for the wall and drive he would fine defendant £10. Coprt costs amounted to £1 12s and the magistrate allowed solicitor's fees of £1 is in -each case.