TROUBLE FORESEEN.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 243, 15 October 1931, Page 11

TROUBLE FORESEEN.

BUILDING. CONSTRUCTION.

CRITICISM OF BM.

I MASTER BOILBERS ! VIEWS. J

i.Be re— Building Construction SHI na.s been disc-assed zi resent meetings Q f the Auckland Master Builders' Association. states the secretary of that anil sereral features have received criticism . because of their particular concern to builders and the ceneral public. The constitution of the advisory committee to oe set up under the bill has been condemned by architects for the reason that provision has been made for the appointment of only one architect amongst the eight members of the committee. The building industry a greater grievance. The builder is to nave xhe duty of carrying out the regulations in a practical sense and "frill baT» many responsibilities thrust upon' him. yet no representative of his trade H To . as hed to share in the framing ox the regulations so vitally affecting j his interests. 2Co building of importance is erected "without many consultations betveen the architect .and the builder, and it is contended that the opinions of' trie practical man should be available the advisory committee is framing regulations, as vrell as at other times Trhen the Act. is be in;: a.drninistered. The absence of provision for 1 a representative of the building industry has ea-tised surprise;, and it is urged that even the appointment of ~o pra.ctical men would be justified in view of the varying conditions in the North and South Islands of the Dominion. and the essentially practical problems that have to be dealt with. Builders are in agreement with architect? in protesting against the preponderance of engineers on the committee and also foresee many troubles for builders and architects, with additional expense for owners, if the con-' trc'l of building is to be taken by Government officials.

Special Tax. Tie proposal that a fee of 2/6 per] £300 of value should be charged on all j buildings, in addition to the regular j permit fee no~ imposed by local bodies.. J is strongly objected to on the ground J that it is inequitable thai building j owners of the future must pa— for administering an Act designed for tie general public ff elf are. There is tie further objection that portion of the special fee is to be devoted to pcientinc [ research, meaning, apparently, that the Department of Scientific Research Trill create a branch for the collection of statistics from other parts of the •srorld : ' and tie keeping of records principally for the benefit of • architects -and engineers. ■i> Builders contend that professional men should p3y for their o«"n equipment of kn off 1 edgeMoreover, it is proposed to charge thei special fee of one-eizbth of one per cent on every building, reconstructed building, and eveis every alteration. Thus i motor parage, stable. fc~l shed and all kinds of buildings, 'whether or not human life is involved, are to be taxed, ostensibly for scientific research and administration of regulations designed far protection against, earthquakes. It is plain that there ought to be some minimum belotv ffhich the special fee Ts-ouid not be imposed, or other limitation. even if it be not recognised that vrhen the regulations become kno"sm there ran be" no service rendered on

j behalf of the Government in connection I with the expenditure of thousands of 1 pounds annually. The local authorities- 3 ] officials will carry out all necessary I duties, of course, in regard to hundreds jof wooden residences and buildings of | minor importance. as they do at present, yet every owner throughout the Dominion will be specially taxed on behalf of these buildings, partly for the cost, of administering an Act which will give tie owners no benefit and partly for obtaining data for the use oi proiessional advisers. Yield of Levy. - — i During the past nv° years, the ex- j penditure on building in New Zealand i has been: —1925. £—.528,000; 1927.] £5.412.000: 1925, £-5.50G.000; 1929. £7.150.000: 1930, £4,275,000. On an outlay of £5.000.000 the special fee would realise £2250 annually, and once the regulations are definitely framed it is difficult to see how the advisory board \ would require anything like thai j amount, or wh-r only people who spend j money on building operation? should j pay it in addition to the permit fees of local bodies., which give ample service.