PUTARURU BRICK AREA.

Putaruru Press, Volume VIII, Issue 323, 23 January 1930, Page 4

PUTARURU BRICK AREA.

TEMPORARY PERMITS GRANTED. Permit Committee Appointed The questions of the recently created brick area and building permits were interwoven in a lengthy discussion at the last meeting of the Putaruru Town Board. The first question was raised by Mr. A. E. Barr Brown, who regretted his absence from the meeting at which the brick area was brought into being. He wanted to know if the matter had been fully discussed by the members. The chairman (Mr. K- McDermott) outlined what had taken place. Mr. Barr Brown thought that such an important matter would have warranted the setting up of a committee to go into the matter. He considered that the step taken was a pretty drastic one for Putaruru. The matter of building permits was first raised by Mr. F. C. Flyger, who waited on the board in reference to a permit required for a building in Princes street. He made it clear that he was not blaming the deputychairman for refusing to issue the permit. Mr. Flyger pointed out the costly delay when permits were not issued when applied for. In reference to Smith’s buildings, the bylaws provided for a nine inch brick wall; this was not fire proof, whilst a six inch hollow wall was. This contention was supported by the Fire Underwriters’ Association. The bylaws should be elastic. If the nine inch brick wall by-law were rigidly adhered to then 40 feet of space would be lost in Princes street. The proposed wall at the top end of Princes street would be in the nature of a curtain wall, as Mr. Smith intended putting a roof over the two buildings at a later date. He (the speaker) asked that building permits be issued a little more readily. The chairman (Mr. McDermott) stated that the by-laws called for a nine inch wall, though he readily admitted that such were not in agreement with the Fire Underwriters’ Association. He had held the permit up because it was not in accordance with the by-laws, and in view of the recent trouble over the issue of building permits. He hoped the board would review the position as regards permits.

Mr. Barr Brown sought information as to whether one or two walls were involved. It was stated that two walls were in question.

Mr. Tomalin contended that a nine inch wall between properties was reasonable. Mr. Barr Brown took it that the object of the by-laws was to obviate fire and as openings in the wall were suggested this risk would be increased.

The chairman stated that the board had no power to issue permits contrary to the by-laws, and if issued such permits would not be binding, and the board could require any such buildings erected to be pulled down. Mr. Flyger retired at this stage.

The matter was again discussed when the question of issuing permits for the erection of two garages in the brick area was reached.

The chairman said that he* had held up the permits as the garages were to be erected in the brick area. He understood that the chairman (Mr. G. G. Griffiths) recommended temporary garages for say 12 months. In reference to permits generally, there should be nb objection to the issue of such if they conformed with the by-laws. If contentious they should be referred to a small committee whose decision should be confirmed by the whole board. If the committee were not satisfied then they should refer the matter to the whole board. He suggested that such a committee be set up. Mr. Barr Brown said that this was the first item that cropped up in connection with the brick area. Had the matter of such an area been thoroughly investigated by a committee before creating a brick area, such matters as the present one would have been gone into. If thev allowed one building not in brick to be erected in the brick area then they would have to allow any others applied for. It was useless to issue a permit for 12 months, for it was an additional expense to the builder.

Mr. C. C. Neal favoured the issue of temporary permits. Such buildings could then be removed at any time the board required them to, be removed. Mr. Barr Brown contended that as the brick area had been created they should adhere to the by-laws.

Mr. Tomalin was of the opinion that it would be a distinct hardship to expect people to erect brick buildings at the rear of premises.

Mr. Barr Brown agreed, but asked Mr. Tomalin why he voted for a brick area. Mr. Tomalin said that if they had made a mistake they should rectify it. Mr. Neal did not think that a miatake had been made, but elasticity in the administration of the permits was required. He personally would not be in favour of giving a permanent permit for such buildings as sußgested, even if there was no brick area. The chairman said that the legal opinion was that as the brick area had been constituted it would have to stand. Mr. Barr Brown said that the brick area was not five minutes old, and they were faced with hardships. There had been no drastic hurry for a brick area. Mr. Tomalin said that if the garages in question had to be built in brick he, for one, would be willing to re-open the whole question. The chairman suggested that the permits be granted temporarily, subject to the pleasure of the board. Messrs. Neal and Tomalin expressed their agreement, with the issue of temporary permits. The chairman’s suggestion: was adopted, and temporary permits for the erection of the garages in corrugated iron were issued. The matter of the brick walls of Mr. Smith’s new premises .as raised by Mr. Flyger was then further discussed. The chairman was of the opinion that the Fire Underwriters’ Association could .proceed against the board for unreasonableness if their contention, that a 64 inch hollow wall was better than a 9 inch solid wall, was sound. His private opinion was that the Town Board by-law was unreasonable. Mr. Tomalin favoured amending the by-law. The chairman said the other question was the provision of a parapet wall. Mr. Barr Brown favoured the granting of a permit for a 64 inch wall, provided parapet walls were erected on each side. Mr. Tomalin agreed. The question of louvres in the walls was gone into, Mr. Barr Brown holding that such would increase the fire risk. The board finally decided to be in favour of the issue of the permit for 64 inch hollow walls, provided that the louvres were cut out. IWhen the general business stage was reached, the question of permits was again raised, Mr. C. C. Neal suggesting the appointment of a local 1 person who would be prepared to vise building permits on payment of the fee collected by the board. It was pointed out that if the fees were handed over it -would mean the loss of £4O yearly to the board. The chairman again suggested the appointment of a small committee to be operative In the case of contentious permits. Mr. Tomalin favoured the holding over of important permits until the board met. Mr. Barr Brown disagreed, contending such a practice unfair to builders. Messrs. McDermott, Neal and Barr Brown were appointed a committee with final powers.