BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 310, 17 October 1929, Page 5

BUILDING WITHOUT A PERMIT.

PROSECUTION TO FOLLOW. To Act As Warning. Recently a firm of builders erected a shed at the rear of premises ,in Princes street, Putaruru, without first having obtained a permit, and at a special meeting of the Putaruru Town Board it was decided to write and ask the firm to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for a breach of the by-laws. The reply was before the October meeting of the board, and it was to the effect that when the application was made for a permit they were led to believe that in all such small jobs the application was approved by a member of the Town Board, and so went through at once. They were astounded when informed that the shed had been started before the permit had been granted. Any infringement was unintentional.

The chairman, Mr. G. G. Griffiths, was of the opinion that the reply did not show cause why a prosecution should not be made. Mr. McDermott stated that he spoke to one of the principals about the matter (before the building had been started), explaining that it'was usual, when an application for a permit was made, for the clerk to send it to him (the speaker), but as in this case he was the owner he took it that one of the other members of the board would he asked to O.K. the permit. He had thus probably misled the builders. The chairman could not see how this could have led to a misunderstanding. The builder had proceeded against Mr. McDermott’s • statement, and had taken it for granted that it had gone to another member of the board. The builder had had two letters from the clerk and Mr. McDermott’s statement, yet he had proceeded with the building. The clerk (Mr. Dukeson) stated that he thought the builder was of the opinion that the permit had been issued.

The chairman said that it had given rise to a lot of talk in the town in that it would appear that if one were a member of the Town Board one could wangle it. Mr. McDermott stated that similar cases had happened previously and there had been no trouble over them. Mr. Yandle was of the opinion thav the board was being defied. The offenders had had two previous notices. •/' 18 >; Mr. McDermott stated that if the application had been sent to another member of the board it would have been. O.K.

The chairman stated that it was in the 'brick area, and this caused the discussion to turn on the question as to where the brick area was situated, but, owing to there apparently being nothing on the minute books defining the said area, it was not definitely ascertained if Princes street was included. Really, however, the question of the brick area was beside the point. They were dealing with the question of a permit.

Mr. Tomalin stated that the clerk had spoken to him about the permit, but seeing that a meeting of the board was to be held next day it was deferred. Mr. Bent said that the firm in question should have known the regulations. The chairman said that at the special meeting the opinion was that the firm should be prosecuted, and the opinion seemed to be the same at the present meeting. He suggested that their solicitor should press for a light penalty, the prosecution being to impress on people that they would have to get a permit before proceeding to build. Mr. Yandle asked if the building complied with the by-laws, and the chairman said that the clerk would have to look it up.

After a little further discussion it was decided to prosecute, the solicitor to ask for a light penalty, the action to be in the nature of a warning.