Fire Risks.

Grey River Argus, 20 April 1948, Page 5

Fire Risks.

Ballantyne’s Architect

Examined on

Making of Openings

P.A. CHRISTCHURCH, April 19. At Ballantyne’s fire enquiry a -witness to-day was Gordon Tait Lucas, architect for Ballantyne’s, who gave detailed evidence concerning various openings made in the buildings. Lucas said that he understood that an obligation rested on an architect to see that permits were obtained. He admitted an oversight in not ensuring that permits were obtained for all three of the openings that were made in 1944. He regarded the work as part of one over-all plan. The ceiling and walls of Congreve’s and Goodman’s buildings, and the ceiling only of the tailoring department in Pratt’s building had been lined with wall board.

In reply to Mr T. P. Cleary (.for Ballantyne’s) witness said that an architect, in undertaking any work, had a regard to fire risk. It did not occur to him that the openings in Goodman’s and Congreve’s buildings might add to the fire risk. Thoughts of fire were not uppermost in his mind, when he considered the opening contemplated between Goodman’s and Pratt’s buildings. . Asked about the means of egress before the were made on the first floor of Congreve’s building, the witness said the only way out was a stairway. The same applied to Goodman’s. “I contend that the making of these openings gave people an opportunity to get out of those places in a case of fire oi' earthquake”, he added. In planning the openings, he did not consider the installation of fire doors, and he thought they might be a danger, as it was difficult to prevent the indiscriminate closing of them. The enclosure of stairs, .in itself, did not, he thought, help to . safeguard life, unless the enclosed stairs led to the street. They might give a false sense of security to persons above. To Mr B. R. Barrer (for three unions) he said no one had ever asked him whether the alterations he had made increased the fire danger. When questioned by Mr E. A. Lee (for the Christchuren City Council) Lucas said that it was common not to ask a builder whether he had obtained a permit. Witness told Mr E. D. Blundell (for the Fire Insurance Underwriters) that he had never given any consideration to there being a special lire risk in Ballantyne’s. He thought it quite reasonable tiiat the buildings had no automatic fire alarm. After he had said he was working on sketch plans for a new building for the firm, Mr Blundell asked whether consideration had been given to the installation of a sprinkler system. “We haven’t got that far yet, or anything like it”, Lucas replied. Mr G. G. G. Watson (for the Crown): “You have said that, since the date of John Burns’ fire, you were aware of the danger of unprotected vertical and horizontal openings. Why, then, did you make such large unprotected openings in Ballantyne’s as late as 1944 and 1945?” “As I said before, the thought of fire was never uppermost in ray mind, but the thought of people circulating freely was”. When asked whether he considered. the parapets on the buildings an earthquake danger, to which he had said he had given consideration, Lucas said he did not consider they were.

The Commission adjourned until to-morrow. 1

Director’s Evidence

CHRISTCHURCH, April 19.

He had not considered the increasing danger of the spread of fire when lire doors were not fitted to the new or enlarged opnings in the premises of J. J. Ballantyne and Company, said Ronald Haynes Ballantyne, joint managing-director, under cross-ex-amination this morning by Mr G. G. G. Watson (for the Crown), before the Royal Commission of inquiry into Ballantynes fire. He was aware of the necessity of obtaining permits for structural alterations, Mr Ballantyne said. The firm had wanted the work done and. when it was discovered that there was no permit for the last opening male, he had not suggested that a permit should be sought. Mr Ballantyne agreed with the figures of the firms’ insurances produced by Mr Watson. These were: Total insurances against fire on the buildings, stock, plant and fittings 1324,400; estimate of total value for fire purposes, £396,836; estimated total loss £357,600; total of fire inurance premiums £1035. Witness said the firm was insured against loss of profits for one yeat after a fire. •• . Mr Ballantyne said he appreciated that if there had been a sprinkler in Congreve’s cellar the fire would have either been put out or kept under control. Apart from the sprinkler system proposal in 1945, he had never considered the.installa ion of an automatic fire alarm system throughout the building. . No instructions on what to do in the event of a fire had been given to the staff, said Mr Ballantyne. m reply to the chairman, Sir Harmd Johnson.