“BACHELOR FLATS” APPEAL

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 789, 9 October 1929, Page 1

“BACHELOR FLATS” APPEAL

City Council's Ban ‘ CONVICTING UNBORN BABE”

BY accepting evidence from social and welfare workers you are trving and convicting an unborn babe of murder-, said' Mr. j. Osburne-Lilly, solicitor for Marlborough Mansions, Ltd., when the company appealed this morning to a committee representing the Town-Planning Board against the City Council's refusal to grant a permit for tire erection of "bachelor flats.'"’ Witnesses for appellants viewed lightly the council s fears of "respectable slums,” danger to morality and possible public scandals.

The committee consisted of Mr. J. W. Mawson, director of Town Planning, Professor C. E. Hercus, Professor of Architecture at Otago University, and Mr. W. Page, chairman of the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Institute of Architects. Outlining the business of the inquiry Mr. Mawson said that under section 34 of the Town Planning Act local authorities had power to refuse a building permit if in its opinion such building did not conform to recognised, principles of town planning, or interfered with the amenities of the neighbourhood. Marlborough Mansions now appealed against the decision of the City Council. ONLY AUTHORITY

The Town Planning Board was the only authority having judicial qualification in such a matter. The board had found that the most convenient way of hearing evidence was to send a sub-committee to Auckland rather ’than summon the 13 members of the board who were scattered throughout the country. Probably for want, of a better term the apartments proposed in . Marlborough Mansions had been called

“bachelor fiats.” said Mr. OsburneLilly. Some sacrifice had been made by the owners of the Vincent Street block upon which it was proposed to build the flats, in that the size of the section had been restricted to assist the principles of town planning. Marlborough Mansions would be a fine building, taking the place of present apartment houses of a shabby appearance. To a question. Mr. J. Stanton, City Solicitor, said the proposed building planned by Mr. S. Aileman conformed to the City’s by-laws. Important questions depended upon the appeal. New Zealand was now in a state of progressive flux, and town planning practice in other parts of the world, it was recognised, should be taken as a guide for the planning of a young city, Mr. Osburne-Lilly said. Architects would give evidence about flats and housing tendencies in Britain and America. “We do not understand what case we have to answer,” remarked Mr. Osburne-Lilly. “The whole thing has been left to our imagination. No requisition has been made to us in the slightest degree. The only thing we can do is to present the evidence of experienced architects and others. We claim that we do not interfere with the principles of town planning nor with the amenities of the neighbourhood.” NO REASON GIVEN It seemed strange, Mr. OsburneLilly proceeded, that such an arbitrary decision as the ban, should have been made by a body representing citizens of Auckland. The project had been -turned down without any reason whatever.

The only, explanation had been that the mansions would not conform to town planning principles and the amenities of the neighbourhood. Had ■the council pointed out exactly where the building did not conform and how the amenities were jeopardised an agreement could no doubt have been arranged. The council had simply pushed the application for a permit on one side, saying, in effect, “We are in our own rights.” “It Is a remarkable fact that the Town Planning Committee has dominated the council,” said Mr. OsburneLilly. “There is another remarkable thing -—the members of the Auckland Town Planning Association who passed a resolution supporting the council are to a large extent also members of the council’s Town Planning Committee. Here is yet another strange fact —the chairman of that committee is himself a flat-dweller. “It does seem to me that Mr. OsburneLilly is irrelevant,” the city solicitor struck in. “Where the chairman lives is quite beside the point. It is

wasting our time, and beyond the bounds of the inquiry.”

Continuing, Mr. Osburne-Lilly agreed that the inquiry was becoming wider than intended. ' For that reason he took exception to the hearing of evidence by social and welfare workers. Here the reference to the unborn babe. It had been feared in some quarters that the flats would be conducive to immorality, the solicitor said. That was purely a matter of management. It was not likely that the directors of a concern involving a capital of £40,000 or £50,000 would allow that property to be prejudiced by lowmorals. Was it likely that the management would permit a scandal? SUPERVISION WELCOMED “We, as a company, will welcome any legislation or by-law- supervising this sort of dwelling,” Mr. OsburneLilly declared. “The building could be licensed like the accommodation department of an hotel.” There had grown up in Auckland a form of building which was truly a social scandal, and such a system of flats as proposed would correct that. R. A. Spinley, secretary to Marlborough Mansions, Ltd., detailed the purchase of the land and financial affairs of the company. To Mr. Stanton, he said the rooms were designed for bachelors of either sex. The management had not contemplated married couples. Mr. Stanton: There would be nothing to prevent married couples taking a flat.

Mr. Spinley: The management had not considered married people. Mr. Mawson: Supposing you let one of these flats, what would prevent the occupier boarding a friend or two? Mr. Spinley: There would not. he the accommodationwitness, giving an idea of the class of person catered for, said applications had been received from a woman secretary, a commercial manager and two reporters. It was the intention of the management, Mr. Osburne-Lilly assured, to make strict inquiries into the character of prospective tenants. No scandal would be permitted. H. E. Vaile, land agent, believed the mansions would improve the locality. To Mr. Mawson, he said the land could not at present be used for any higher and better purpose than for flats. About immorality, witness found it difficult to see how the occupant of a one-room flat could be any more im moral than the occupier of two rooms.

“If a person’s morality is judged by the number of rooms he occupies, then a man renting 10 rooms should be a very virtuous person,” said Mr. Vaile, amid laughter. H. L. Massey, architect and townplanning expert, gave evidence that he had known of one-roomed flats in England and America of the type proposed in Marlborough Mansions. He could not see how the “bachelor flats’’ could be detrimental to town-planning or to the amenities of a neighbourhood. The building would improve the district. It would not tend to slums but would elevate the locality. The lunehean adjournment was then taken.