Council defends Pilbrow prosecution

SHINING: The new retail complex in Greytown, with cafe 2 Short Whites in the background.PHOTO/LYNDA FERINGA

It's a good development, but contractors need to play by the rules.

Developer Steve Pilbrow, who was prosecuted for undertaking work on the historic Four Square building in Greytown without a resource consent, told the Times-Age last week the council had taken the shine off a "fantastic project".

But South Wairarapa District Council's planning and environment manager Murray Buchanan said he would rather the developer had played by the rules.

In March, the council laid a charge against Mr Pilbrow's company, Westwood Commercial Ltd, for the partial demolition and alteration of the exterior of the former Four Square building on Greytown's Main Street.

Mr Buchanan said the judge had taken a "moderate approach", because it was a first offence for the company.

"The bottom line is he's been convicted of the act."

Mr Buchanan said the council had been in favour of the proposed development of retail space and eateries. "The council has always thought the development that is now partially complete was a good development. We only wish Mr Pilbrow had taken the time to get all the necessary approval before he started work."

Westwood Commercial, which owned the property, was advised the work on the building would require a resource consent because the building was within the town's historic heritage precinct.

In Wellington District Court on June 8, Judge Craig Thompson fined Westwood Commercial $11,000, with 90 per cent payable to the South Wairarapa District Council, for alterations on the building carried out without the council's permission.

"We were expecting a fine of around $14,000 and it was only $11,000, but it was still within the margin," Mr Buchanan said. "I don't agree that it's a win for [Mr Pilbrow] - he's been convicted and he's been fined a substantial amount of money."

Mr Buchanan said he was unsure of "exactly" how much the council had spent on the court proceedings but understood about 60 or 65 per cent had been recovered by the fine.

"It did cost more than the fine that was sought by the court but I have never been involved in a case where the cost was recovered."