SCHOOL DRAINAGE

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23858, 29 January 1943, Page 4

SCHOOL DRAINAGE

EDUCATION BOARD’S REPLY Criticism of the drainage conditions in Christchurch schools by the Drainage Board at its meeting on Tuesday night brings the following reply from the secretary of the Education Board (Mr L. E. Rowley):— “The Education Board was somewhat surprised that the Drainage Board should have adopted the unusual course of informing another public body of its alleged shortcomings through the medium of ‘The Press.’ Your readers will perhaps be interested to learn that, with one exception (Opawa), the Education Board has never received any official communication from the Drainage Board with respect to the cases quoted by the latter’s secretary in Wednesday’s issue of ‘The Press.’ In the case of Opawa the Drainage Board’s request that certain deficiencies should be rectified were given immediate attention. "Had the Drainage Board observed the usual courtesies due to a sister body and written or telephoned the Education Board, it might have saved itself the humiliation of learning that the so -called irregularities were largely the result of its own ineptitude. - Co-operation With Drainage Board “The statement attributed to Mr Champion, that the Education Board does not avail itself of the free service of the Drainage Board, is not correct. No new buildings, remodelling works, or school additions authorised during the last 12 years were commenced until the Education Board’s architect had consulted the Drainage Board’s officers as to the latter’s requirements and sought advice as to the best methods of procedure. In many cases the work put in hand, particularly with regard to the installation of drains, has provided for a higher standard than that stipulated in the by-laws, especially with respect to inspection chambers and inspection pipes. All works during progress have been regularly inspected by Drainage Board officers and at completion received their approval. “The cases quoted by Mr Champion mostly refer to old buildings of 60 years of age or over, which are due for replacement, and which were m existence before the Drainage Board’s by-laws came into force. If those constructed then and since did not comply with the Drainage Board’s bylaws, surely it was the duty of that body to have ascertained the facts long before this and to have requested the Education Board to make good any deficiencies. If, as indicated in a leading article in “The Press” of January 28, up till 1934 a Drainage Board could compel an Education Board to observe its regulations, it surely follows that the Drainage Board was satisfied that the conditions in the schools referred to were satisfactory. Save in the case of Opawa, neither prior to 1934 nor since that date has the Drainage Board approached the Education Board with regard to the remaining points at issue. Maintenance and Repair Work “So far as maintenance and repair work are concerned, I can say definitely that during the last five years (the period the present superintendent of works in charge of the Education Board work in Christchurch can answer for), the Drainage Board has been notified of every alteration or extension made to existing drain connexions and the works have all been carried out by registered plumbers and drainlayers to the satisfaction of the Drainage Board’s inspectors. “In many of the instances quoted, the plumbing facilities were installed before sewers were available, and the Education Board had followed the then recognised best method of disposing, of waste water by use of the side-chan-nel, the only provision made by local authorities. “No doubt the public will be at a loss to understand why the Drainage Board should have left it until 1943 A.D. before discovering and pointing out so-called irregularities which must have been apparent to its inspectors over a long period of years.”