BUILDING AREAS.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 369, 14 June 1911, Page 5

BUILDING AREAS.

WHAT IS THE MINIMUM?

HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S VIEWS

The following letter from the District Health Officer has been received by the Borough Council:— "I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 16th, and of the copy of the by-laws, for which I thank you. The by-laws as a whole are excellent, but as regards the miniumum building area I regret that the Council should feel hampered by the errors in this respect which were permitted in the early days of the town's growth. I would point out that there is no need to regard thesesections already laid off as in any way preventing a more satisfactory restriction being imposed on future subdivisions. That sections of less than onesixth of an acre were sanctioned by Government only indicates the necessity for some better standard being universally adopted both by Government Departments and by local authorities, and I hope that these erors will be avoided in future. By section 2, sub-section 2,0f 'The Public Health Amendment, 1910,' any restriction imposed by by-law made by your Council will not operate against sections already accepted by your Council or registered in the Land or Deeds Registration Offices prior to December, 1910. Thus no hardships would follow. As regards the necessary area, this must be subject to the following modifications: "1. —Non-residental shops do not require the same area as dwellings. "2. Where no sewers exist the area necesasry is greater —owing to the fact that the sewage has to be disposed of on the section. I would regard I acres as necessary for dwellings in unsewered areas, while in districts intended as good class residential areas, even if sewered, sections should not be less than one-fifth of an acre.

"For combined shops and dwellings in sewered areas, one-eighth of an acre is a reasonable limitation for country town conditions. But 1 would strongy urge that the Council should adopt as their policy the discouragement of overcrowding to the extent found already in so many towns in New Zealand. They have an excellent opportunity, having ample space all round, to avoid the mistake begun elsewhere in the early stages of municipal growth, and to make Te Kuiti a model town.—Signed: R. W. Makgill." It was stated that it was known where £ acre sections were being cut into three, and Councillors were of opinion that they should set their face against such work. The matter would have to be faced sooner or later. Cr Somerville thoughtt the longer the matter was unsettled the greater the hardship would be. Cr Lusk was of opinion that such practices shoud be stopped. The Council should not permit two or three cottages to be built on a frontage of from 120 to 130 feet. On the motion of Cr Forsyth, it was agreed to leave the matter in the hands of the Finance and Legal Committee.