WATER FOR FIRES COUNCIL’S FEE MAY BE IMPROPER

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32350, 16 July 1970, Page 14

WATER FOR FIRES COUNCIL’S FEE MAY BE IMPROPER

The Christchurch City Council, in imposing an annual fee for water supplies for automatic fire sprinklers, might be acting beyond its powers, the New Zealand Fire Service Council advised the Christchurch Metropolitan Fire Board last evening.

A letter from the fire service council said the imposition of a fee by the City Council had been raised by other interested parties.

The fire board at its June meeting protested strongly at the City Council’s fee being raised most substantially on the ground that it penalised property owners who installed sprinklers which would not only protect their properties but others in built-up areas. “The Fire Service Council has expressed the view that anything tending to have the effect of deterring property owners from installing sprinkler systems is not in the best interests of fire protection,” the letter said. “The council also considered that the City Council’s intention to make this charge may be ultra vires in the light of section 258 (2) of the

Municipal Corporations Act, 1954. That section says: ‘The Council (l.e. the City Council) shall allow all persons to take and use water from any waterworks or water race for extinguishing tire without payment - for same.’

“The question of whether this charge by the City Council can be made under the name of a ‘fire inspection fee’ may have to be resolved by litigation,” the letter con eluded.

The board’s chairman (Mr N. G. Pickering) said that, as resolved at the last meeting, he and Messrs J. R. Smith and W. R. Campbell (board members) had met the City Council by-laws and finance committee.

“We put very fully the case of what we consider the harmful effects of this charge. It was decided that a sub-committee would look into the matter and report back to the council,” Mi Pickering said. A member said that, in view of the letter from the Fire Service Council, and the report yet to be made to the City Council, nothing more could be said at present. Earlier Comments

Cr H. P. Smith, the chairman of the City Council’s finance and by-laws committee, said last evening before the meeting of the Fire Board that the deputation which had waited on the finance committee had put forward certain aspects relat ing to the fire service which had not previously been brought to its attention. What emerged, he said, was that the council’s charge was based in part on the council’s responsibility to maintain the special water mains installed for fire-fighting. It appeared as though some of the owners of the premises concerned were prepared to accept the responsibility ol maintaining them. If owners were prepared to accept such responsibility, then it could well be that the scale of charges should be reviewed, said Cr Smith.