New Stand Defended, But Council Dissatisfied

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30214, 20 August 1963, Page 12

New Stand Defended, But Council Dissatisfied

The proposed new No. 3 grandstand at Lancaster Park provided all measures for the safety of the public that were required by the city by-laws or the New Zealand Standards Institute, said Mr C. W. Hamann, of the consulting engineering partnership which designed the stand for the Victory Park Board, in a letter before the City Council last evening. “On our own judgment, it affords generous safety margins on those requirements,” Mr Hamann said.

But the council adhered to its decision that the stand must comply with the bylaws and that when an application for a building permit was received the council would appoint a subcommittee to meet the board.

“It might be hoped that the councillors who took u>p the hue and cry of public safety will frankly and publicly correct the misleading statements they have made and remove the wholly false impressions created by them,” said Mr Hamann’s letter. He and his partners would be happy to have the plans and calculations submitted for critical examination by any competent, impartial authority. Although' well - founded legal opinion said the park board was not under the control of the council,, it had for the last 10 years met all local body building requirements. “At the request of the City Engineer, whose staff were stated at the moment to be slack and could do with something to look at, we supplied full plans and calculations,” Mr Hamann said “These details were supplied by ourselves on behalf of the park board to the City Engineer in accordance with the cordial liaison of the past. No comment from the City Engineer was received suggesting that he thought certain features might not conform with the by-laws. “We wish to emphasise that no application was before the council at its last meeting except an application to remove some houses in Wilsons road to afford a proper clearance from a new structure; yet the councillors refused to consider that matter because the new structure was a grandstand, which according to their arguments did not satisfy the by-laws, although they had had no details.” There was no clause applicable to such structures as

grandstands, either in respect of the framework or of egress, he continued. “On the latter point, the council has been trying to impose the requirements for dance halls and suchlike, which are totally different structures.” Non-combustible Materials in the new stand were non-combustible and the stand had no accommodation below the deck. No-one could say the new stand did not provide some 25 per cent, more egress than was required by the New Zealand standard specification which the council itself had invoked. No-one could say there was not almost three times the egress which on average was provided in seven major sports -stadiums abroad, including the Rome Olympic and the newly-completed Harney Stadium, San Francisco. No-one could say that an average centre-line distance of 45ft between exits transgressed the allowable 200 ft permitted by the Standards Institute. “If anyone would wish to pursue the question of the encasing of the still framework on the basis of what is written down as a requirement or of practicable behaviour of which we have first-hand evidence, we will be most happy to join issue,” Mr Hamann said. ' There was no existing city by-law appropriate to grandstands. Realising the shortcomings of the earlier specifications, the New Zealand Standards Institute, before the council’s meeting, had drawn up and adopted suitable clauses to safeguard the public. The stand, as designed, more than met the requirements for safety, Mr Hamann said. The new safety requirements called for only 30 per cent of the egress required for a fire compartment <a building enclosed by walls extending through all storeys to the roof). The revised requirements also omitted any reference to a grandstand as a fire com-

partment, and called it merely a grandstand, said Mr Hamann. “Contradictory” The information from the engineers was contradictory to the advice given by the council’s officers and some councillors, said Cr. R. M. Macfarlane, M.P. He proposed that three members of the town-planning committee shoud meet the park board to discuss the matter. “We don’t want an unholy wrangle,” he added. “As soon as the board sees fit to submit the plans we are quiite happy to meet anyone,” said Cr. T. D. Flint. “Let them ask for a permit to build, and we will soon advise them.” “This is all very confusing,” said Cr. N. G. Pickering. The council had been given information at its last meeting and he had acted on that when he made remarks at a meeting of the Fire Board; but now he found a direct refutation of that. Who was right? He was horrified at the suggestion that City Engineer’s staff was so slack that it wanted to have plans to look at, Cr. Pickering said. There should be no compromise, said Cr. M. R. Carter. The board should apply for a building permit in the usual way, just as everyone else had to do. Cr. H. E. Denton said that town planning “might as well pack up” if Lancaster Park was able to get av ay with building without a permit. “This is not Lancaster Park versus the City Council; it is merely a matter of procedure on whether a building permit should be applied for.” No. 1 stand compares more generously on egress than most of the stands elsewhere in New Zealand, and if anything terrible did happen those in front could jump over,” said Cr. A. E. Armstrong. “I don’t think there is any danger at all. The park board is doing a great job for sport, and we should listen to what it has to say.” Suspicion

“1 suspect that the board does not intend to apply for a permit,” said Cr. W. P Glue. “This document is full of red herrings. “I would be happy to have a conference with them if I thought they would apply for a permit, but I don’t think they will.” “This is very much a slap in the face to the council, and we should not discuss anything with the board until it applies for a permit," said Cr. P. J. Skellerup. There was a simple question for the council, said the acting-Mayor (Cr. H. P Smith). It was: “Is this body required to' do what other people are required to do when they want to construct a building?”

If someone in the community had some dispensation from the regulations and by-laws that governed other sections of the community that would be an extraordinary state of affairs, he said. Anyone who went into a public stand naturally thought that the stand had been approved by bhe appropriate local body, he said. While buildings at the □ark might comply with the council’s requirements, the oark board had never acknowledged the council's right to pass their building plans. Cr. Smith said. He would stand right behind the staff, said Cr. G. D Griffiths, chairman of the town-planning committee The council should not retreat from its attitude that the board should apply for a permit. After that the council could discuss any requirements with the board.