Earthquake Risks Report Referred Back

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30191, 24 July 1963, Page 12

Earthquake Risks Report Referred Back

A report advocating urgent action to enable local authorities to compel property owners to remove parapets and facades considered a public danger in case of earthquake was presented nearly a year ago to the Minister of Internal Affairs (Sir Leon Gotz). The Minister said recently, however, that the report was too vague in its proposals and was unacceptable in some aspects, and the committee had how been asked to reconsider its findings and make specific recommendations. The original report would “definitely” not be published, he added.

The committee, which is under the chairmanship of Mr H. L. E. Peryman. of the Internal Affairs Department, includes also another member of the department, scientists from the Dominion Physical Laboratory and the Seismological Observatory, a Ministry of Works representative. the secretary of the Earthquake and War Damage Commission (Mr J. R Bennett), and two members each from the Institute of Architects and the Institution of Engineers.

The committee was formed originally to report on any need there might be to strengthen existing buildings against earthquake risk. It is understood to have been divided over what should be done with old buildings which could be strengthened satisfactorily only at prohibitive cost. They were unanimous, however, it is believed, on the urgency of legislation to compel the removal of potentially dangerous parapets and facades which were not part of the weight-bearing structure of

buildings, and submitted an interim report suggesting such legislate “I am most concerned over the safety of the public from overhanging parapets and the like." Sir Leon Gotz said. “I believe something must be done in the matter. That is why I have asked the committee to come back with specific recommendations.” But the original suggestion of the committee, the Minister said, was that local authorities should be given power to pass by-laws under which their inspectors could demand admission to any building to examine it as an earthquake risk, rompel the removal of any structure they considered dangerous, and enter details of their findings on the title-deeds of the property as a guide to prospective purchasers. Insurance companies were to be encouraged to offer differential rates corresponding to the safety grading given by the local body inspectors. "To my mind, such recommendations would not be entirely acceptable," he stated.

A great obstacle to entrusting public safety measures of this kind to local bodies was that propertyowners who might be affected could be members of the competent authority. The interim report, said Sir Leon Gotz, suggested that finance should be made available to local authorities for them to compensate the owners of buildings where demolitions had been carried out by order of the authority. “But if in the interests of public safety it should be thought necessary to require structures to be pulled down, from what source would the necessary compensation come?” he asked. “Not from the Earthquake and War Damage Fund—it only pays compensation after the fact.” No suggestion for a possible change in this policy had been discussed with the commission administering the fund.