ADOPTION OF EGRESS CODE

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25447, 19 March 1948, Page 8

ADOPTION OF EGRESS CODE

To some extent, but not largely, the egress code, as well as the standard building code were drawn from the by-laws of local bodies, said Leslie John McDonald, executive officer of the - New Zealand Standards Institute, to Mr W. R. Lascelles (for the City Council). Formal but altogether inadequate provisions were contained in local body legislation in a large measure covering safety points now provided fbr. Mr Lascelles: Does your institute accept the view that to attempt to a PPIy up-to-date provisions to very old buildings creates a serious problem?—That is a reasonable statement of the position and the clause in the code relied on the discretion of the city or borough engineer in each case.

The code involved a system of inspections by local bodies, Mr McDonald said. A suggested requirement that first responsibility be on the owner or occupier was held by the committees to be unreasonable and discretion was left to the engineer and the officer of the brigade. He would not agree that a reasonable attitude was for local bodies to suspend the egress code until codes covering othfr related matters of fire prevention were issued, if the local by-laws were adequate in the meantime. It was desirable that the most adequate laws should be introduced with as little delay as possible. Egress was considered the most important aspect in considering fire tragedies overseas. To Mr E. D. Blundell (for the fire underwriters): The underwriters fully supported the standard codes and were

insistent that the committees should get on with the work. He would nnagine it was the case that certain fire alarm and sprinkler systems had been installed contrary to the rules of the underwriters’. council. So as to leave the degree of flexibility to satisfy practical purposes, the Municipal Association had recommended that the code be made mandatory, subject to amendments proposed by any local body being approved by the standards committee. A substantial body of opinion was that the onus on complying with the code should be on owners and occupiers. Many of the country’s buildings could not be so altered to provide a standard means of egress and he did not know if the compulsory installation of sprinkler systems in such buildings had been considered by the committee.

Mr L. Glover (for the Superintendents’ and Deputy-Superintendents’ Union): Are you aware that a row is going on between the picture theatres and the fire boards as to whom should employ and pay the firemen?—No. No provision for payment is made in the theatre code. ‘1 am going to suggest to the commission that the egress code is the best one available.” said Mr G. G G. Watson (for the Crown) when the chairman (Sir Harold Johnston) intervened during his re-examination ofi Mr McDonald. He thought Mr McDonald’s evidence would be helpful to the commission and in keeping with its order of reference. The chairman said he expected assistance from counsel in their addresses and he saw no necessity of carrying the questioning further.