The Daily Telegraph. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1884.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4149, 8 November 1884, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1884.

Referring to a decision recently given by the Resident Magistrate at Christchurch in a case in which the City Surveyor sued a builder for a breach of the by-laws for not depositing tho plans of the proposed erection, the Press, it seems to us, altogether mistakes the question that was at issue. The Resident Magistrate gave judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that the Municipal Corporations Act gave no power to a Borough Council to pass a bylaw making it compulsory upon a builder or architect to deposit the plans of a building with a City official prior to proceeding to erect the same. In this decision, we think, tho Magistrate had both sound law and common sense to support him. Tho Press, I however, is of opinion that the deposition of the plans of a building is necessary to carry out tho building regulations. Our Southern contemporary for instance, says, "If the City Surveyor, in the interests of public : safety, is to see that proper materials are to be used in building's, that the walls are. to be of a specified thickness, and that the proper precautious are to be taken against the danger of fire, this duty can only be efficiently discharged by that officer receiving notice before a building is commenced, or an alteration begun, and being put in possession of plans, so that ho can know before-hand what kind of building is to be constructed. The by-law as to'tho depositing of plans, in fact, is a regulation logically included in a series dealing with the erection of buildings.". Now, it appears to us that, if an officer is appointed to supervise the erection of buildings he does not need to be put in possession of the plans. It.is nothing to him whether the contractor is doing his duty by his employer. All that the' City Surveyor is called upon to do is to see that the building regulations arc respected. Notice of the intention to build having been served upon him it then becomes his duty to personally satisfy himself during tho erection that no breach of the by-law is being committed. By being merely put in possession of the plans would be no guarantee that tho plans so given him would bo carried out in. the building-. He -would have t» go andseo to that himself, and that being tho case the. plans would be no'use to him. There is another point which should not bo lost sight of, and it is this, many architects, naturally enough, object to have their plans submitted to a City Survoyor for his approval. The mere fact that they are in business on their own account conveys to their minds the impression that they are the professional superiors of the man who has found it convenient to accept a paid office, and they would resent having to furnish plans for his endorsement. A respectable architect would be quite as well acquainted •with the provisions of the building regulations as the City Surveyor and would not attempt to evade them. All the same, plans or no plans, it would be the duty of the Surveyor to ascertain from time to time during the course of erection that the building regulations were being complied with. In the case of buildings in which no architect is employed of what avail would tho carpenter's plans be as a guarantee that the regulations would be rcspectod ? The plans might be one tiling and the building another. We consider, therefore, that to deposit building plans is unnecessary as regards tho enforcement of a by-law, and it might lead to very great abuse, which can easily be understood by those in the profession.