THE Hauraki Plains Gazette With which is incorporated THE OHINEMURI GAZETTE. Motto Public Service. MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, & FRIDAY. FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1926. THE BRICK AREA BY-LAW.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4977, 21 May 1926, Page 2

THE Hauraki Plains Gazette With which is incorporated THE OHINEMURI GAZETTE. Motto Public Service. MONDAY, WEDNESDAY, & FRIDAY. FRIDAY, MAY 21, 1926. THE BRICK AREA BY-LAW.

The brick area by-law was first introduced during the second .term of the first Mayor of Paeroa (Mr W. J. Towers) about .the time that Messrs Hague-Smith, Ltd., erected the concrete premises now occupied by the Farmers,’ Trading Company. The proposed by-law was keenly debated and strongly supported by the “Gazette.” Shortly after .this a series of disastrous fires proved the wisdom of the new by-law. The area brought within the by-law comprised a distance of 85 feet deep on both sides pf the main street extending ’from the Bank of New Zealand to the Paeroa Hotel. Originally .this w.asi a comprehensive .measure, requiring al,l walls, etc., of buildings in that area to be built of ‘'brick, concrete, or other non-combustible material.” The bylaw was strongly supported by Paeroa’s second Mayor (Mr P. E. Brenan); during whose term of office it proved a contentious question, being subjected to frequent attacks led by Cr. E. Edwards. Uutimately it appears that a compromise was reached which 'resulted in an amendment requiring only the external and party walls to be built, in brick. It is impossible to suggest any further reduction of the brick area requirements without making useless the creation of a ; brick' area. The controversy that took place at the last meeting of the Borough Council reopens the Whole, question, namely, is the existence of a brick .area necessary or wise ? If a brick area was desirable eight years ago, when the first by-law was passed by the elected representatives of the burgesses, it is much more desirable now that Paeroa is showing- actual/ signs of’progress and development asi a business centre. The recent decision of the council, therefore, is greatly to be regretted. Under clause 88 of Part XIII. of the by-laws thecouncil appears to have a dispensing or discretionary power which enables; it. to waive a strict observance of the building by-law if such is; shown to “needlessly injuriously affect thecourse of operation of business, or be: attended with great loss and inconvenience to any person without a corresponding benefit to the community.” Such a provision in the- by-law is doubtless necessary, but it should be exercised by the council with -the utmost caution ; otherwise it places the council in the position of being able, by 'resolution at an ordinary meeting, to legislate for individual cases to the extent of requiring one person to build in brick and exempting another. There is a great deal in Cr. E. A. Porritt’s contention that the granting of Mr W. M. Cullen’s; application would make it impossible for persons desiring to build to know, even after reference to the by-laws, what the actual requirements are. There can be no question that th® Mayor was right in insisting on the application showing how great loss a,nd inconvenience would occur without corresponding benefit to the community, becadsa the only safeguard from abuse of this clause is’the judgment of public opinion. This has not before been insisted upon, but we trust that in future it will always be done. The applicant, through his solicitor, stated that “loss of rent, payment of rates: and taxes, deterioration df premises through being unoccupied” was a loss .s,ufficient. to invoke section 88. We have the statement of the. Mayor, which will: hardly be questioned, that the accommodation to suit the lessee could Rave been provided for about £6o' or £7O additional cost, and that already £2O to £3O in rent been lost to the owner through his unwillingness tb comply with the brick area requirements. This cannot be said to be an undue hardship, and the whole application appears to have purposed to defeat the by-law. The opinion of the solicitor to the Municipal 'Association was definitely that the council could not legally grant the application, even under the modification power o< clause 88, section XI.IIi. This point was clearly placed before the councillors prior to the vote on the application being taken. We have no

hesitation in affirming that under all the circumsmtances there was no possible justification for the action taken by a majority of the council in granting the permit. The public interest has been betrayed and the sound progressive movement hindered. It would be well if burgesses, would take note of these matters, that they may acb wisely when again appointing representatives to the Borough; Council. In all probability other businesses will deisire to take advantage of the precedent now established, and we should not be surprised if the next council meeting showed some evydehce on this point. It is wrong to discriminate between applications, and it would be doubly wrong to allow the brick area to be made inoperative. We stand strongly for its enforcement without fear or favour, so that the. present development may be on permanent lines. There are the fine brick post office and municipal chambers, in addition to other permanent buildings, and a new brick theatre and an hotel a[re possibilites in our midst. Surely it is the duty of the council to see that, all other buildings are reasonably in keeping. We. heartily commend the Mayor and Ci's. Flatt, Porritt' and Hare for the definite stand they adopted in opposing the granting of the application, and those who opposed them we condemn, for the reason that their auctions in connection with the matter were inconsistent, and that they were swayed by personal feelings and did not act in the interests of the ratepayers.