FIRE BOARD OPPOSES SHINGLES FOR ROOFS

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27632, 13 April 1955, Page 12

FIRE BOARD OPPOSES SHINGLES FOR ROOFS

Shingles should not be allowed for roofing, the Christchurch Fire Board decided to advise the City Council last evening. They were described by the chairman (Mr N. R. Forbes) as a menace, and the chief fire officer (Mr L. R. Osmond) said they were dangerous because brands could be carried up to a quarter of a mile and set fire to other buildings.

In 1948 the board had opposed the use of shingles, said the secretary (Mr S. F. Marshall). Overseas authorities were adamant in their opposition to shingles, said Mr Osmond, and it was considered that no matter what wood they were made of they should be prohibited and only non-combustible material used, k The New Zealand standard code of bylaws stated that wooden shingles were prohibited.

Members of the City Council were not at all keen on wooden shingle roofs, said Mr C. Baldwin. The council had sought the views of the Urban Fire Authorities’ Association. “I don’t agree with this at all,” said Mr J. E. Jones. “You can’t point to one case of a house being burned down because of having a shingle roof. There are at least a dozen houses in Waimairi with shingle roofs. We must have a uniform policy.”

If the fire board or the council was consistent it would ban malthoid roofing. which was far more dangerous

than shingles, said Mr Jones. There were hundreds of malthoid roofs throughout the city. “I know of nothing better for a fire than setting a malthoid roof ablaze,” he said. “We don’t want to look silly tho d P ”° hibit shingles and allow mal -

A shingle roof could set fire to other shingle roofs because it produced brands, which malthoid did not do, said Mr Osmond. The Great Fire of London developed because of the use of shingle roofs.

To the chairman, who said that many sun verandas were lined outside with shingles, Mr Osmcjnd said the danger was not so great when shingles were on a steep pitch.