The Press WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1938. The Building Code

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22590, 21 December 1938, Page 10

The Press WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1938. The Building Code

It is a welcome announcement that the major part of the model code of regulations governing building standards is to be issued early next year. The importance of this development has been admitted, of course, for years. The warning of the Napier earthquake and its disastrous loss and damage was too plain to be overlooked; and it seemed probable, at first, that action would be prompt and thorough. It was not. The full story of the changes of policy and the delays that ensued need not be recalled: but it is desirable to remember two facts. First, the original intention of " enforcing" by statute a code of building standards affording protection against earthquake risks was abandoned. The Coalition Government prepared a bill in which this intention was given form; but the bill was dropped and, instead, it was announced that a set of model bylaws would be prepared and local authorities be left free to adopt it or not, as they might choose. It was somewhat vaguely suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr Forbes) that compulsion would perhaps be resorted to, if local authorities proved too dilatory or unwilling. The task of preparing the code was delegated to the Standards Institute. Second, the institute produced a code, which, although it was neither published nor enforced, was at least examined by some experts. One of them, Dr. L. Bastings, described it at the Science Congress in Auckland, about two years ago, as "far from satisfactory." In the meantime —that is, for six or seven years—there is no doubt that a great deal of building has been done in which not even these "far from satisfactory" standards have been complied with. Professor Speight, several years ago, expressed the gravest alarm over the delay in framing and enforcing adequate regulations and emphasised the folly of neglecting essential (and by no means costly) precautions in a country where no area can be counted immune from heavy shocks. A few months ago Mr H. F. Baird insisted that this neglect still continues. Now the importance of these facts at the present time is obvious. The new code is said to embody considerable improvements on the 1935 code—improvements in which it represents "all the "latest results of research" in New Zealand and oversea. At first glance it may seem to be nothing but gain that the issue of the code will have been delayed until such completeness and perfection can be claimed for it. It is a more disquieting question, in what ways and to what extent the recent building of the Dominion will be shown to be defective, by the test of the new code; and it remains to be seen what steps can be, or will be, taken to rectify dangerous deficiencies. But there is the larger question of the Government's intention, whether to set up the code as an example to local authorities or to revert to the original proposal and make it a national and compulsory code. There can be little doubt which course is the wiser one. This is a matter in which it cannot suffice to rely upon the local authorities, which, to say the least, vary a great deal in energy and foresight. Expert opinion is positive upon the two points, that earthquake risks are general through New Zealand, and that the consequences of ignoring them may be of the gravest. Besides, there is good reason to believe that the difference in cost between building safely and building dangerously is, in proportion to the values at stake, negligibly small. It is a difference that may and should be reckoned as a national insurance premium; and the Government will make a bad error if it does not legislate accordingly.