The Borough By-Laws.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume I, Issue 80, 15 December 1887, Page 3

The Borough By-Laws.

three protests.

ICT INTERPRETATION THEREOF. JLt the Borough Council meeting on Tuesday night two objections to the new by-laws were received. One was from the Bank of New South Wales objecting to provide two tanks for the »hops occupied by Messrs Parnell and S., and Croft, as demanded by the ipector, Mr Param. The other wee from Mr 3. W. Matthews, manager «f the Bank of New Zealand, who * tnade a similar objection with regard |0 the premises occupied by Messrs 35, K. Brown, H. Bull and Son, and Garret Bros., with a further addition that the two shop* occupied by Messrs Brown, and Bull and Son were under one roof, and, in any case, only one tank was required for these tenements. The objection to comply with the Inspectors request was that the by-law applied to dwelling houses and not to shops. The by-law referred to was No 5 sub-section 14. In answer to a question from the Mayor, the Inspector said he bad no reason oujaide or carrying out the byCouncil for making the deHRni Apart from that he might E state that the block of buildings in which the shops were was considered most dangerous as regards fire. The Mayor said the by-law was framed snore from a sanitary "peint pf view then to provide against fire. Cr Lewis said he certainly failed to see the use of the by-law if it were only for sanitary purposes. The objection was, no doubt, a legitimate one. Had the marginal note been left out it could not have been raised. The Mayor said that apparently the by-law bad been classed under " sanitary ” instead of 11 fire." Cr Joyce said that he had, at the last meeting, contended that the bylaw was solely for sanitary purposes. Cr Townley >aid it was greatly to be regretted that two bankers in the town nad set a bad example. It was a pity that two leading institutions should set such an example. The intention of the by-law was that the tenants should have a drop of water to drink, and that there should also be some in the event of fire breaking out. If the banks were going to object to such a by-law he did not know what sort of by-law they could pass. If the bylaw were to be set at nought it was

hopeless to attempt to improve the town. They should make a test case Of the objections before them and see at once if-the by-law cannot be enHe though if the intention by-law were explained to the they (Messrs Hogg and would probably reconsider PBeir objections. Cr Morgan thought the by-law was harsh. He would ask why business inen who have no use for water should have to supply a 400 gallon tank. Cr Lewis agreed with Cr Townley. What was the use of making by-laws for the purposes of health and fire {.retention if they were to be set aside at the first objection ? If they favoured the bankers in this instance others would naturally want the same con-

cession. Cr Joyce thought the by-law was only meant to apply to private houses —not shops. The by-law was not tery Clear one way or the other. The Mayor pointed out that the marginal note could not be considered. The section itself said "house.” Whether that meant private dwelling or not was open to doubt. Cr Lucas said anyone could use a private house for a shop. Cr Tucker proposed that the Bank of New South wales should be informed that the by-law did not refer .ip private dwellings only. As regards in® protect from Mr Matt new# he Wks inclined to think that under the provision one tank was all that was required. He took it that every building should have a tank and not that every tenant should be provided with one. It would to well to avoid fighting With two wealthy institutions, and he thought, out of mere humanity, they should gracefully accede to the bylaws of the Council. Cr Dunlop said the by-law was framed only for sanitary purposes There was no occasion to censure the objectors. They had made a legitimate protest, and if the by-law had been clear and distinct the objections would probably never have been made, ' Mr Hogg, manager of the Bank of New South Wales, who was present, said he bad seen both the tenants and they did not require tanks. He could tee no necessity for enforcing the bylew. They were taxed heavily enough already. ’ Cr f ucker said it was not right to hear any argument whether the by-law was necessary or not. They had simply to carry out the by-laws as they had been made. Cr Ponsford seconded the proposition which was carried. As regards the objection made by Mr Matthews to provide two tanks for a building where two tenants were under the one roof Cr Tucker thought that the by-law meant there was to be a 400 gallon tank for each “ separate ”

building. The Mayor was of the same opinion. Cr Tucker proposed that if one tank were provided it would comply with the by-law. Cr Ponsford seconded. Cr Morgan asked if it would be necessary to provide two tanks where a shopkeeper leased a shop and there was a small residence at the back, some 80 feet distant. The Mayor said if there were not common access no doubt two tanks were necessary. In such a case the by-law would be arbitrary. ’ The Inspector said he knew the place referred to by Cr Morgan. He only intended to ask for one tank in that case. Cr Tucker said it was better to err on the side of health and, safety. The motion to send an answer to the Bank of New Zealand as proposed by Cr Tucker was carried. Mr James Erskine wrote stating that he had paid, under protest, a building fee of one guinea. The letter also pointed out that it was usual in other tot ns for the Council to provide levels fo. those intending to build. Cr Whinray took exception to the by-law under which the fee was claimed

as being arbitrary. Mr Burch had informed him that £1 Is had been demanded from him simply because he was taking off old iron from the roof of aloby 12 and putting on new. It surely was never the intention to charge a fee in such a case. The bylaw would be right enough where new buildings on the public streets were about to be erected.

The Inspector said Cr Whinray had been misinformed. He never dreamt of charging the fee in Mr Burch’s case. In the first instance he was told by Mt Burch that a new building was to be erected, and he then said there would be a fee of £1 Is to pay. But when he was afterwards told that Mr Burch was only going to cover an old building he never thought of demanding the fee, Cr Tucker pointed out that the Council had only to administer the bylaw as it stood.

Cr Townley pointed out that the by-law was an exact copy of the one in force in Napier. It had always worked well there, and he did not see why it should not do so in Gisborne. The by-law gave the Council many necessary powers. The fee might be a little too high. Instructions could be given to supply levels. They could not make laws to suit everyone. How Mr Erskine could object to it he did not know. The proposed building was to be a bake-house, and the Council should have some control over its construction. An answer should be sent that the Council did not see their way to take any steps other than those already taken. It was either that or they should do without the by-laws altogether—live without them. Cr Whinray asked whether if he was going to build a 10 by 12 to put wood in, a fee of £1 Is was to be charged. Cr Townley said in such a case he should say decidedly not. The Mayor said a great deal would have to be left to the Inspector in enforcing the by-law. Cr Whinray said the fee was to pay for the levels. No levels had been provided in this case. This view was also held by Cr Joyce. In answer to a question the Inspector said Mr Erskine's building did not abut on to any road. No levels were necessary He (Mr Faram) had done all required of him by the by-laws. He had found that there was no provision for tanks or spouting when going through the specifications. Cr Whinray said that unless some specific service was rendered no charge could be made.

Ultimately it was decided to inform Mr Erskine that the Council considered the fee had been properly collected.

Cr Joyce proposed and Cr Whinray seconded that the fee of £1 Is specified in section 44, by-law 5, be only charged in cases where the Borough Engineer or Inspector inspect plans and levels of buildings fronting any public street within the Borough. This was carried. SPORTING NEWS. \ The following acceptances have been re ceived for the Hawke’s Bay Boxing Day meeting — CHBISntAB HANDICAP. Pearl Bivnlet Salisbury Melville Miss Dargon Kups Whisper handicap hukdlxs. Owhaoko On Trial Denbigh Volcano Chemist Uranus Eohe Clyde HABTINOS HANDICAP. Silence Waitiri Pearl Deceiver Expected Kups Wars ma Falconer Serpentine ■