SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 223, 14 June 1919, Page 10

SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND

TWO APPLICATIONS REFUSED. '

At (he meeting of (lie Cily Council on Thursday, tho By-law* Committee' submitted . matter for argument-in the following clause in its 'report:—"That it hcis had before it two applications for subdivision of property on which there'are existing dwellings. One proposal shows two suctions -vith frontages of 17. feet. G inches and 20 feet. respectively, whilst the second-, includes .four ■sections, each with a frontage i.f 23 feet 7. inches. The Oily Engineer points'out that he is of opinion Unit the. Jiind should not be -comprised in separate titles. The committee desires that the nuestiori of the granting or refusing of these applications be referred to Ihe council for its consideration, as it involves a very important principle dependent upon \the construction and application of'the Wellington City Council Empowering Act, 1917." ■ ■ :■:..(.'

Councillor J[, F. Luekie, peaking in favour of the ( applications,and emphasising that the committee made no recomfiiendation, said he did not see how they Could very well be refuse']. On each of the proposed subdivisions there was a house, which had been -erected according to the City by-laws, and if they were burned. <lo\vii: they could not prevent them being rebuilt, lie urged that separate titles would mean, in (.11 probability, separate, ownership, and occupancy .by the, owners, which was always a good thing, and a preventive of sliimdom, us a man always looked nfter a property better when he held it i;i liis own right, us against I lii' landlord, who was not ill ways to conscientious. . '

Councillor T. Forsy'rh was"rnlher surprised lo hear iiiiit landlord-owned houses meant slums. That contention wns entirely fallacious, lie- --as under the impression (hat u>ry email holdings Mich;as were proposed to he-ereated were sliinis in the- waiting. He would be against, granting the application. Coun'cillor Luckie -should iiave attended the recent'town-planning .•onfrraee-it would have been an education , to ..'lim.

Councillor O. jr. Chapman als-o spoke against the ijr.intinjf of ihe application, find Councillor .T. -At. Dale dismissed Councillor Luckie's contention that a mortgagee's security would be seduced on fiueh properties were Ihe separate titles refused as entirely fallacious.

Aflor a long discission the council tie cidod to refuse the apnlieitions. ■"•