Building Construction and Public Safety

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22894, 15 December 1939, Page 10

Building Construction and Public Safety

At a meeting of the Christchurch Fire Board, reported in “ The Press ” on Wednesday, Mr K. W. Robinson drew attention to the “ quite unreasonable fire hazard” in many city buildings. In 1938, he pointed, out, fire damage in the three main cities amounted to £340,000, much of which might have been avoided had the buildings concerned been constructed with due regard for fire risks. Mr Robinson is, however, unjustifiably optimistic if he supposes that his appeal to the Christchurch City Council to supervise building construction more closely will have any useful result. The truth seems to be that nothing short of an organised public agitation will awaken the Government and local authorities to their duty to enforce standards of safety, health, and convenience in building construction. It is now eight years since the Napier earthquake showed, at the cost of scores of lives, that certain types of buildings are a death-trap in earthquakes; and it has been conclusively shown that no part of New Zealand is immune from earthquakes. Yet in those eight years there has been no organised attempt to make existing buildings safer and, what is worse, no attempt by local authorities to ensure that new buildings are constructed on earthquake-resisting principles. The Inspector of Fire Brigades appeals with monotonous regularity in his annual reports for a stricter enforcement of building by-laws to minimise fire risk. Yet not only do local authorities ignore. his appeals but the Government itself, as was shown when the new social security building was destroyed by fire, deliberately overrides by-laws drawn up to safeguard lives and property. In Christchurch, revelations of insanitary conditions in apartment houses are made year after year; and yet neither the City Council nor the Drainage Board has made any serious attempt to what is a direct menace to 'public health. The excuses offered for inaction are varied. Local authorities protest that they have not sufficient powers, that they have not enough inspectors, that they are unwilling to cause hardship, that they are waiting for direction and guidance from Wellington: while in Wellington sets of “ model “ by-laws ” are solemnly and endlessly passed from one State department to another. The public can draw their own conclusion, which will probably be that the real reason for all this delay and evasion is a discreditable reason.