“UNFAIR RESTRICTIONS"

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1061, 27 August 1930, Page 10

“UNFAIR RESTRICTIONS"

"It is no uncommon thing to see the whole side of a building painted yellow or light blue and it. is certainly against the amenities of the neighbourhood,” commented Mr. Tyler. For that reason I thought that in the interests of town planning something ought to be (lone. We decided upon a. scheme of permissible colours with a View to effecting uniformity and to eliminate some of the glaring . . . “\Vhat shall we call them?" hei asked, turning to Cr. Bloodwortlni chairman of the Town Planning Committee. who was in the room. , . . All those horrible reds and yel» lows—those loud bright colours,” the City Engineer said. answering'his own question. Mr. Tyler had no knowledge of any lay-laws (worsen, touching on the mat. ter, nor in any New Zealand city. Nevertheless. he felt something should now be done. There was nothing specific in the Town Planning Act, but he expressed the opinion that the word "amenities" covered the ques~ lion. COMPLAINTS RECEIVED "A lot of complaints have come to the council." said Cr. Bloodworth. “lt siul'ted. when a building in Manukau Road had been gaudily painted. Then one of the council's oWn buildings in Anzac Avenue was given a bright coat. but we persuaded the tenants to tone it down." The T 0“ n Planning Committee thought Mr. Tyler‘s proposals a good idea. continued Cr. Bloodworth. _ Mr. Tyler: A number of Sign painters to whom I have spoken also agreed with the regulation of colours

Cr. Bloodworth mentioned that in Wellington there was a building painted a bright yellow and one in blue. The effect was to obliterate all jbther buildings. Existing signs in reds, yellows, light f>lues and so on would be permitted to Continue until they had faded but permission to repaint in present hues Jvould not be allowed.