TOWN BUILDINGS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3549, 13 June 1912, Page 5

TOWN BUILDINGS.

NECESSITY FOR A PERMIT.

GISBORNE RESIDENT FINED

Under the Borough Council by-laws James O’Dowd, carter, of Gisborne (Mr Kane) was charged before Air. W. A. Barton, S.AI., yesterday morning, with making an addition to a building on the Waikanae Beach, below Lowe Street, without obtaining a permit. The information was laid by Inspector R. O. Skeet, and defendant pleaded guiltyAir. Coleman, who prosecuted, said the defendant had a house just beyond the Borough boundary on ICaiti. In February last he saw the inspector and inquired whether he could move the building into the borough. The inspector said it could be done, providing the building was in good order. Later defendant showed the inspector a rough plan, which was accepted, and defendant was told to get proper plans and also a permit. From information received the inspector visited the beach, and found the material from the Kaiti building had been used in addition, to another house there. Packing cases had also been used and an iron chimney. The addition was not constructed according to the by-law by any means. The excuse given by the man at the building was that he had taken a lease of the property from defendant, who was to make the additions. That did not relieve defendant from responsibility. The Council did not wish to press heavily on defendant or anybody else, but there must be some compliance with the by-laws. Air. Coleman-said lie did not know whether they could get an undertaking that the building would be taken down. Air. Kane said the facts as stated were substantially correct, excepting that defendant said the inspector told him lie could proceed on the plan he •showed. He said he was told by tlie town clerk he could go ahead with the '.work, but would have to see the building inspector- Air. Kane said the . present occupier was willing to pull down the addition. The breach was only a technical one, and counsel asked for a light penalty. . His Worship said it was very necessary that tlie by-laws should he enforced and kept. The by-law was well-known and there had been several cases of the kind. , Defendant had better have the building removed or altered in accordance with the bylaws. Defendant would be fined £2 and costs (£1 8s).