WITHIN THE BRICK AREA.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2466, 2 April 1909, Page 5

WITHIN THE BRICK AREA.

APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS IN WOOD.

Air. J. H., Martin, licensee of the Gisborne Hotel, recently applied to the Borough Council for permission to add an additional storey to the wooden portion of his premises, in order to bring the building into line with the threestorey brick addition now in the course of erection. Provided it was allowable under the by-laws, the Council decided to grant the request. At the committee meeting on Wednesday night the following opinion was received from the ■ borough solicitors, Alessrs Clirisp and Coleman:

“We are informed that it is proposed to add in wood a third storey to an hotel built of wood ot the corner of two streets, the building in question having two external walls of wood fronting such streets, and two external walls of brick on the other sides. The hotel is situated within the ‘inner area.’ The question submitted to.us is: ‘Alay such third storey be added in wood ?’ A\ e are of opinion that the answer is -Yes.’ The point is somewhat arguable, but after careful consideration, we are strengthened in this view by the recentdecision of the Supreme Court (Poole v. Rennie, XI. Gazette L.R., p 299). .where Air. Justice Williams points out that to put another storey on an existing building is quite a different tiling from erecting a new building. At nrst sight the wording of the by-law would appear to present some difficulty, but on a close and liberal reading this difficulty is more apparent than real. It is quite clear that no alterations or additions unless in brick, stone, or concrete can be made to any such building in a lateral direction, but the reasonable construction and the intention of the br-law is not to prohibit an addition upwards bv continuing the original external walls. Wore it otherwise the effect would be that no wooden biuikling within the ‘inner area’ could have another placed above it, and an owner wishing to make such addition would have to demolish the old build in cr altogether and build up again from the foundations. Or if an owner had in the first instance overbuilt the whole of his land with a wooden buildinerected in coiiforiiiitv with the bylaws for the time being in force, and subsequently found it necessary to enlarge the building, it would lie unreasonable to hold that because the bmldjjisc could not be extended lateialJy it could not be added to above by an addition in wood. The principle om which the by-law slioul be construed is that no lateral additions to any buildin cr can be made except in brick, stone, or"concrete, but that where additions do not extend beyond tlie external walls of a building already erected, such additions are not an infringement, of the br-law. On the whole purview of the by-law this is the reasonable conclusion to be arrived at, and to hold otherwise would be straining its provisions beyond what is its real intention. We would point out that before any. such additions are commenced the Inspector of Buildings should be applied to for a permit under by-law 8.7 The application, m accordance v.th the foregoing was granted.