BUILDING PERMIT

Lake County Mail, Issue 14, 27 August 1947, Page 1

BUILDING PERMIT

Alterations to Queenstown Hotel STATEMENT BY CONTROLLER

“The work was authorised to proceed because it was considered on its merits to be a warrantable case and any inference that the Hon. Minister influenced my decision in the matter is entirely incorrect.” In those words the Building Controller, Mr R. L. McPhail, Wellington, denies any suggestion that Ministerial influence was used in connection with the granting of a building permit for alterations to the bar of the White Star Hotel, Queenstown. Following publication of an article upon this question in last week’s issue of the Lake County Mail a letter was sent to the Minister of Works, the Hon. R. Semple, asking him for his comments on the article, a copy of which was submitted to him. Mr Semple referred the article to Mr McPhail for a reply.

“ I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that on no occasion through all the years which Building Control policy has been operated has the Minister directed or influenced me to vary my official decision in any one of the many thousands of applications dealt with,” said Mr McPhail. Commenting upon the statements as published Mr McPhail states: — 1. The statement that on March 4, 1947, application was made to the Queenstown Borough Council for a permit and that this application was fowarded to the District Building Controller, Mr J. S. Jackson, Dunedin, who subsequently refused the permit is “fairly correct with the exception that the permit application was not refused by Mr Jackson as it was submitted by him to the Building Control Advisory Committee in Wellington which is responsible for the decision. Mr Jackson, therefore, as my district representative merely actioned the application in accordance with routine procedure.” 2. The statement that on June 13, Mr Semple wrote to the proprietors of the hotel advising them that he had consulted Mr McPhail and if plans and specifications ' were forwarded to Mr Jackson the permit would be granted ■ is, states Mr McPhail, only partially correct. “ The Mdonourable Minister did write to the of the hotel advising them that a permit would be authorised for the proposed work,” he writes, “ but this decision resulted after 1 had personally investigated the premises during a visit to the South Island and my reason for discussing it with the Minister was due to the fact that the proprietors, after receiving the first decision of deferment through Mr Jackson, wrote to Mr Semple appealing for the matter to be reconsidered. As a result of my personal investigation of the proposal I was satisfied, after discussing it with Mr Jackson and the Minister that the request was reasonable as the then existing accommodation was definitely substandard and the amount of new material involved in the work was relatively small. The letter dated June 13 from the Honourable Minister was, therefore, one in answer to that of the proprietors and in addition to advising them that the proposal would be approved they were requested to resubmit the application to Mr J«ckson at Dunedin who was also

being advised to authorise the issue of a permit upon its receipt.” 3. The statement that the second application for a permit was received by the borough council on June 20 and was received by Mr Jackson, Dunedin, on June 23, is correct states Mr McPhail. 4. It is also correct, he agrees, that on July 1, Mr Jackson wrote to the borough council advising them that as no permit for the work had been granted work had to cease. “ Mr Jackson’s action in writing to the Queenstown Borough Council,” said Mr McPhail, “ was taken because at that time he had not received the application which the proprietors had been requested to make. 5. The statement that the hotel proprietor, Mr J. E. Home, then telephoned Mr Jackson at Dunedin explaining that he had received a letter from Mr Semple stating that the permit would be granted and that Mr Jackson then'rang Wellington and when assured there that a permit had been granted gave permission for the work to be proceeded with, is, states Mr McPhail, also correct. 4. This statement is also correct and Mr Jackson’s action in writing to the Queenstown Borough Council was taken because at that time he had not received the application which the proprietors had been i’equested to make. “Mr Jackson’s permission for the contractor to proceed with the work was given at my direction,” he states. “ This decision was given because although it was realised that the proprietors had engaged the services of Mr Butler and commenced work before actually receiving the permit I considered that as the work would receive immediate approval upon receipt of the firm application, it would only be pin-pricking to have the work stopped pending the completion of the usual formalities.