TEMPORARY BUILDINGS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1010, 15 October 1912, Page 2

TEMPORARY BUILDINGS.

AGAIN DISCUSSED BY

COUNCIL

At last night’s meeting of the Borough Council, Cr Greig moved that the Council obtain the opinion of its solicitor with reference to the issue by the Council of permits for the erection of buildings, temporary or otherwise, which it is not intended shall be constructed in accordance with the borough by-laws. Cr Adams seconded the motion. * The mover said that he had been absent from several meetings at which this matter had previously been discussed, but he was under the impression, as was the general public, that the permits were issued subject to the buildings being removed within nine mouths. He had, however, looked the matter up, and found that such was not the case. On July 23rd, the following motion, moved by Cr Chrystall and seconded by Cr Richmond, was passed : “That permission be given to tenants of premises destroyed in the late fires to erect temporary buildings for their business provided permanent buildings are erected within nine months. Applications to be left in the hands of the Town Clerk to deal with.’’ Cr Greig said there was nothing in the motion providing that the temporary buildings should be removed at the expiry of the term. It only provided that permanent buildings should be erected within nine months, and when that was done the conditions laid down by the Council were carried out, and the temporary buildings could remain for all time. On August I2lh, Cr Richmond moved, and Cr Whibley seconded, that no more permits be granted tor temporary buildings in Main Street without a guarantee of their removal within nine mouths. The motion, however, was not carried. The effect of same, if carried, would not have been to restrict the erection of temporary premises, bul only to make provision that they should be pulled down at the expiry of nine mouths, and yet the majority of the Council voted against it. The position appeared to be that the Council had allowed all sorts nf buildings to be erected without any provision for their removal. He was ot opinion that they should find out exactly what the position was.

Cr Stewart said that the reason why Cr Richmond’s motion was rejected was because they understood that it was unnecessary.

Cr Greig’s opinion was that the Council was not within its rights in granting the permits. They had made by-laws, and had not the power to set aside same. He would like the solicitor’s opinion on that point. The Mayor said that the solicitor had stated that the Council bad not power to give permits for the erection of buildings that were not iu accordance with the bylaws.

The motion was carried unanimous! v.