Evening Post FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 1928. BUILDING BYLAWS

Evening Post, Volume 105, Issue 4, 6 January 1928, Page 6

Evening Post FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 1928. BUILDING BYLAWS

It has long been a source of complaint among architects and builders that building bylaws are not up to date. Some forms of construction are sanctioned which it would be advisable to check, and, on the other hand, there are bylaw provisions that hamper economical work. Building bylaws have two main purposes: safety and hygiene^ These purposes are to be attained, however, by reasonable means. The fire-risk of a wooden building in a closely-built area is barred; but in the widerspaced residential areas fire-proof materials are not insisted upon. Similarly there are provisions designed to ensure adequate light and air in sleeping-rooms, but the regulations cannot be carried further than the prevention of faulty construction. The local authority can insist that windows shall be made to open, but it cannot make sure that they are opened. Increased knowledge of hygiene and of the use of building materials has in many respects changed standards of construction, yet the bylaws, which largely govern those standards, have remained unaltered. Inasmuch as they do not comply with modern requirements, building bylaws fail in their two main purposes. More than this, the failure is costly. We have the proof of this in the variation of bylaws in many centres, and some of these variations account for much of the difference in building costs. New Zealand towns are not singular, however, in their failure to keep their bylaws up to date. According to a writer in a special "House and Home Section" issued by the London "Times," the need for revision of English building bylaws has been recognised for fifty years. As long ago as 1877 the Local Government Board issued a model series of bylaws in the hope that these might prevent unnecessary differences, for after all (it was stated) "the laws of gravity and the laws of health operate in exactly the same way in Kent as in Cumberland." The attempt to, introduce uniformity was partly defeated by the district councillors. The Local Government Board and its successor, the Ministry of Health, have since given close attention to the subject by issuing further series of model bylaws and urging local authorities to undertake revision. These efforts have not proved wholly effective. Some local authorities, chiefly in rural districts, could not or would not appreciate how local bylaws impeded invention, mass production, and the standardisation of materials. It was imperative that the Ministry of Health should have power to insist upon revision. This power was given under the Housing Act of 1925, empowering the Ministry to require any council ■to revoke any bylaws which it is satisfied are, or are likely to be, an impediment to building of any class. In New Zealand, so far as we are aware, there is no centril authority with the means or the power to secure revision of local bylaws. The Town-Planning.Act includes cont_*J of buildings in the purposes of planning schemes; but this does not give direct authority to introduce a reasonable measure of uniformity in the building requirements that concern the laws of gravity and health. Failing evidence of greater voluntary activity by the local authorities themselves, it certainly appears that the spur of a central authority would be desirable. The Government itself is interested to the extent of millions in housing, and it can quite reasonably take steps to see that the money is well spent. Actually the Government does take some steps by controlling the specifications for houses built with State advances, but this control is limited. It can insist upon something more than the local bylaws prescribe, but it cannot permit less, even though the Government officers may be well aware that the local bylaw prescribes something unnecessary and expensive. The subject is one which closely affects the cost of building and the adequate provision ot houses. Particularly is this so in so far as out-of-date bylaws (relics of earthquake scares) discourage the use of more permanent materials. It is highly desirable that architects, builders, surveyors, and engineers, through their recognised professional organisations, should take a hand in the | matter and endeavour to galvanise local government into activity.