Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

ALTERATION OF BY-LAWS.

PORTION OF No. 1 BRICK AREA DELETED.

At the last meeting of the Borough Council an application was received from Mr J. McColl to build a. wooden building on the bottom half of the section at the north end of Main Street, the building to he so placed that it would front Ravens worth Place and leave the front half of the section, fronting Main Street, vacant. The Council, after brief discussion, decided that a

committee, consisting of the Mayor and Councillors Coley, Walker and Bryant, visit the section and bring down a recommendation to the next meeting. The committee met on Tuesday and discussed the matter and brought down the followin'recommendation to a special meeting of the Council held last evening, there being present: the Mayor (Mr J. Chrystall) and Councillors Coley, Walker, Adams, Parkin, Thorpe and Bryant., An apology was received from Ci'. Ross. The recommendation of the committee read as follows: — “That lots 1 and 2, situated on the south side of Ravensworth Place, including the rear portion of section 08 on the north-west corner of Main St., be excluded from the No. 1 district of the borough, subject to tlie following conditions: (1) The rear portion of section 08 shall ha.ve a frontage of not more than Ml i'ci-t id Ravensworth Place iu order that the residence of approved plans in be erm-ted thereon shall be fully detached, i.e., 40 ft. I'mm any building which may be erected on tin- front portion of the section facing Main St,: (2) the

applicant shall pay the cost of ad vertising Special Order iu orde that this exclusion may he made, al so any sub-division considered necessary by the Council. Cr. Coley voted at the committee meeting against any infringe ment of the by-laws. Cr. Coley objected to the mattei being gone on with with three Councillors absent. He said the mattei of alteration to by-laws should In dealt with by a full Council. Cr. Bryant said that there wasonly one apology received. The other two Councillors had the stum chance as those present to attend

Cr. Walker moved, seconded by Cr. Bryant, that the report oi' the committee be adopted. In speaking- to the motion. Cr. Walker said that the committee had agreed that the site in question was in the residential part of the borough and that it was not likely that business premises would ever be built there. The Council had made a mistake in including that portion in the brick area. The fact that building had to be erected in brickin that quarter was holding back the advancement of the place as residences were not going up. There was not an empty house in the borough.

Cr. Bryant endorsed Cr. Walker’s remarks aud said he could not see wliy both ends of Liddell St. were in the briek area and the whole length of it not. The by-law had been made a- good many years back, about twenty. The Mayor said that when the matter was brought up at the last mepting of the Council lie was not aware of the depth of the section. The idea was to confine the rear strip to a maximum of 60 feet, leaving 105f'(. in Main Street in the brick area. The section was 165 ft. deep. By doing this and allowing wooden buildings to be erected on (he rear strip, they would be fully detached from buildings in the Main Street strip. Cr. Coley was opposed In altering (be bv-laws and was right in a way, but in this case it was better to err, if they really did err, on the side of mercy. It would cost £3OO to £4OO more to erect the building in brick, and if the application was not granted the building would not go up and the section would be idle the same as the other two sections. The new buildings in Fox ton were not keeping pace with the removals and losses by fire.

Cr. Adams said that if the section was not out of the brick area it should be. There was no danger to Main St. premises in granting the application as the new building would be fully detaehef}. Cr. Coley said he would got support (be motion. About twelve months ago the Council had spent £l5O on preparing new by-laws and now they wanted to cut them up. A lit(le while ago a Chinaman erected a wooden sleeping house at the rear of his premises in Main St. and Cr. Walker had been one of those to have him prosecuted and made to

put up a brick structure. Some of Cr. Walker’s premises would not bear close scrutiny. The Chinaman had, incidentally, been fined ,C 5. This was a similar case. The application was to erect a wooden building in the brick area. Why should one man be fined and the other allowed to erect the building? He supporfed the present by-laws. A little while ago the by-laws were useless and laughed at, but now the Council had good hv-laws they proposed to chop them up. Cr. Walker said he took exception to Cr. Coley’s remarks in reference to his premises. Cr. Coley: Well go and have a look at the dens. Cr. Walker said the case where the Chinaman had been convicted was different. If the Council had made an error with the by-laws, it should he remedied now. Cr. Thorpe said that the motion was reasonable. It was rather drastic that such properties as were being discussed should he included in the brick area. He was in sympathy with Cr. Coley’s views re altering the by-laws. He would support the motion. Cr. Coley: The by-laws will he wortheless if you chop them about. The motion was then put and carried. For: The Mayor and Councillors Bryant, Walker, Parkin, Adams and Thorpe. Against, Cr. Coley.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MH19240315.2.8

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2708, 15 March 1924, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
982

ALTERATION OF BY-LAWS. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2708, 15 March 1924, Page 2

ALTERATION OF BY-LAWS. Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2708, 15 March 1924, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert