“PREPOSTEROUS”

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 801, 23 October 1929, Page 6

“PREPOSTEROUS”

FLAT-DWELLERS QUITE MORAL OPINION OF BUILDERS "Those who live in flats are as moral, if not more moral, than those who criticise them. This ban Pn flats is prepostenous!” In these words Mr. c. J. Bishop expressed his views on the attitude of the Town Planning Committee 0 f the City Council in refusing to i., no permits for the erection of pending the issue of the Tow Planning Board’s decision in reeara to the recent inquiry concerning Marlborough Mansions, or "bached flats," at a representative meeting Z Auckland builders yesterdav after' noon. Mr. N. Cole was in the chah-’ "The Town Planning Board i 8 ius,' waking up to the fact that the ques tion of flats has not yet been inves tigated,” said the chairman, in out' lining the reason for the calling of the meeting. "For that reason thev want to hold up flat-building in Auek laud while they formulate a poliev “It is felt that the situation 'is serious to builders and those financ ally interested, and will cause unenn ployment—the very thing the conntry is fighting against just now. tVe feel that as long as the buildings are being erected in conformity with the city by-laws, no one, either Citv Council or Town Planning Board should hold the work up until a policy is formulated. If they want to make by-laws, let them make them while the work is going on." SEVERAL CONTRACTS LET At present contracts had been let and permits refused, for at least three large blocks of residential flats, one site being in Federal Street and involving £60,000 expenditure* and one in Emily Place, costing £47,000. Another block was at Remuera, and would cost £30,000.

"In Emily Place, buildings that were returning about £ls a week were torn down, and until the ban is removed the owners are losing rental and interest on .their money." said Mr. Cole. "It is all because the Town Planning Board says that bachelor flats are not suitable from the moral point of view. It is quite unreasonable to hold up all the work in Auckland while other towns in the world have flats.”

Mr. J. H. Langley: How can thev hold the work up if the buildings are structurally sound? Under what law do they act? The Chairman: They are withholding the permits wrongly and unfairly. It is the City Council Town Planning Committee which is responsible. “The question is,” he continued, “must we go for them baldheaded or some other way? If we take it to the Supreme Court it will be a lengthy business, and there is no need for it.”

Mr. Langley asked why the architects were not represented at the meeting. The Chairman: They know of this meeting. If they don’t come here that’s their business. The architects say the by-laws governing flats need revision. Mr. G. Rhodes, senr.: It seems to me that the Town Planning Board has been in business long enough to attend to all this. There is no excuse for holding the work up. Certainly we want a moral community, but the board is to be condemned by builders for this action. Mr. Langley: About £140,000 is involved, together with a quantity of labour.

The Chairman: Yes, many builders have had to put off big teams of men over this trouble. “The members of the Town Planning Board have simply sat cold in their jobs until we got going," said Mr. C. Bishop. “Then one or two set up as the moral judges of the community, and the board says to itself, ‘We must formulate a policy about flats.’ Any other country would have foreseen the growth of flats years ago.”

Drawings had been made, money spent and property bought, but everything was held up at the whim of the board. It might be six months before legislation was brought in. “The Town Planning Board should be censured for the fact that it has made no provision for this years ago. said Mr. Bishop. The chairman put forward a motion that the master builders of Auckland viewed the action of the Town Planning Committee in refusing permits for the erection of residential flats with anxiety. It was unnecessary wTiere the location and the buildings complied with the by-laws. In somt: instances, where the plans had been approved by the City Council, the permits had been refused. It was also unfortunate in view of the fact that unemployment was rife. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rhodes, senr., and it was resolved to forward copies to the Auckland City Council, Town Planning Board, toe Institute of Architects, and the leaders of the three political parties.