BUILDING BY-LAWS

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 303, 14 March 1928, Page 12

BUILDING BY-LAWS

ONUS ON THE BUILDER MR. JUSTICE OSTLER’S DECISION Press Association. PALMERSTON N., To-day. Mr. Justice Ostler has forwarded to the Supreme Court his reasons for allowing the appeal of Mr. Keay, the Woodville Borough building inspector, against the decision of the magistrate in refusing to convict Charles Forbes, a builder, of breaches of the borough building by-laws. Forbes is a builder who ha da contract to erect a building containing two shops with separate entrances and a party wall. Before beginning work, he applied to Keay for a permit, producing his plans and specifications. They showed the party wall as a wooden one, which is an infringement of the by-laws. Keay did not notice this, but asked Forbes if the plans and specifications were in accordance with the by-laws. Respondent, honestly but mistakenly, informed the inspector that they were, with the result that the work was authorised, on condition that it was executed in accordance with the building regulations. Keay did not observe any infringement of the by-laws until respondent had erected the framework of the party wall. He thereupon served Forbes with a notice to remove the wall, as it was not in conformity with the by-laws. Upon respondent declining to do so, Keay laid two informations against him, one for erecting the wall, the other for failing to remove it after due notice in writing. The magistrate dismissed both informations. said his Honour, because he felt himself embarrassed by the previous Supreme Court decision, and it seemed that, but for that decision, he would have convicted. There was a distinction, however, in the present case. The scheme of the by-laws throughout was to cast on the builder the duty of seeing that the plans and specifications were in accordance with the by-laws. The permit was not a certificate that the by-laws had been complied with. On the contrary, it expressly warned the builder that it could not be held to sanction any deviation from them. His Honour said that he could see nothing treasonable in such a course. It was the duty of the architects and builders who prepared their own plans, etc., to make themselves familiar with the building by-laws. His Honour held that the information had been wrongfully dismissed. The cases were remitted to the magistrate to fix the penalties.