BALLANTYNE’S FIRE LOSS OVER £33,000

Grey River Argus, 22 April 1948, Page 3

BALLANTYNE’S FIRE LOSS OVER £33,000

A difference I-of £33,208 between the. total insurances on buildings, stock,- plant, fixtures,-'- and fittings, electric light-■ and .heating : systems, cash systems, and lift?;..and - the7estimated; loss. in- -the fire; at' J;- [ Ballan-tyhe-arid- Company's” pi'emiSes' om'November 18, was, disclosed by Mr Ronald Haynes Ballan'tyne; “a joint .man-aging-director,- to- the—Commission. -The figures -.-produced in a-state-ment- were that the insurances totalled £324,400, the estimated value l of the.. nroperty'-.insured” was £396,836, and - the ■ estimated , losses '"were £357,608.■-'.<■-•■ The point was-also'made that:Ballantyne’s held- a-.io-ss-ot-profits policy for one year; under which the amountpayable would .‘not. be -ascertained -until the. expiration : of the period of indemnity. - ‘ '- - ■ •■' Details shown Jn .the. statement placed before the Commission' as “an exhibit by Mr G. G. G. Watson (for the Crown), as particulars handed to him by Mr T. P. Cleary (for Ballantyne’s) were:— Estimated Est.

Richard Lepitit Scott, a member of a building firm, - gave evidence that the verandah .at Ballantynes had been put up in 1918, and had- beenauthorised by the City Council. Having obtained permit for one opening, his firm had made in the building, he had not made plans of, nor applied for,- one or two subsequent openings which his firm had made. “We had ’been knocking openings in buildings for years and it never crossed my mind that we were creating a fire hazard,” Scott said to Mr Hutchison (for the Fire Board).

Ballantyne . Was questioned at length by Mr Watson on the cost of the installation of a sprinkler system. Mr Ballantyne said that the system was explained to him and he understood that if a fire occurred in the cellar damage from water would not be done in other parts of the building. In round figures, the , total value of the property and the stock in the business was just-under £400,000, and the company was paying, roughly, -£lOOO a year as fire premiums. ’ ; ’ Mr Watson: You were offered a complete sprinklei’ system for something' under £9OOO. Mr Ballantyne: Yes. If you had installed that system, that offer to: you, you appreciate, would have been protecting £400,000 worth of property at an expenditure of £9ooo?—Yes. Did you realise that, in addition to protecting property of that value, you would be protecting the lives of vour employees and the general public?—Yes. As to the cost, of that protection, your fire premiums of almost £lOOO a year would have been nearly cut in ' half under the rebate system?— Yes. You would have saved about £475? —Y’es. So that if there had been on other saving, the .saving on the fire premiums alone would have paid for the sprinkler system in 18 years?—Yd's. There are other savings, interest of £360 a year on your capital expenditure of £9OOQ at 4 per cent, could have been deduciable? —Yes.

What rate is allowed, you under income tax for depreciation on an installation like that? —Seven- and ahalf per cent, on the initial value. So that in the first year you would be allowed another £7OO by way of depreciation against your income tax? —Yes. So that apart from the element of providing safety for* youri property, a sprinkler system would' have been a pretty good financial investment? — Yes, I realise that. One reason he had against the installation at the time it was proposed was the quality of piping, said Ballantyne. Although the specification said “the quality of pipes, fittings, and workmanship throughout is of the highest standard, he considered that the piping was not up to pre-war standard. He knew that the firm which offered the system had a world-wide reputation, and would stand up to its work. Although the reconstruction of lay-out of departments contempt uted meant only shifting of goods, it was thought better to defer mak.ng the installation of the sprinkler system; some structural alterations were also proposed. He did not remember getting any .advice from the architect on the system.

Mr Watson: You apreciate now that if you had a sprinkler in Congreve’s cellar it would have put the fire out at its scat or held it under control? —That is what the experts say.

You believe so? —Yes, under ordinary conditions. He was practically certain that after the main power cable supplying the building was installed in 1936 it had been checked by an inspector of the Municipal Electricity Department a witness. Victor Stanley Appleyard, Ballantynes electrician, told Mr R. A. Young (for the Crown). He couri not recall any failure of lights on me day of the fire. Though he had noticed roughness in the bell-mouth of the pipe carrying the cable into Ballantynes in March last year, he saw nothing then of the joins discovered during the last adjournment, “ witness told the chairman. To Mr T. P. Cleary (for Ballantynes) witness said he was not consulted on the location of the hew cable installed in 1936, and was r.ot consulted on his preference between a fuse panel and an oil circuit-break-er, though he knew that there baa been a controversy on the latter point at the time. He found that th? four service.mains running from the pole' to the building had ..burned through. The bell-mouth on the pipe which carried the no.wer cables'w.as rough, involving risk of chafing. Tne fuse panel had fallen away from the said he-had not seen joins in the blackened cables,. but .he thought, that they would have been noticabie before the fire. Having examined the joins he was satisfied that they contravened the regulations. The ioins should not have been there at all, and if they-were tncre when the cable was ■ put in then they sh&uld have been seen by the inspector. .7 z ' . •

...: . Insurance Value Losses Buildings:— ■■■■"-' . J £ ■£ Congreve's —-7,000 --14,450 13;554 Goodman’s .15,0.00 22,000 21,738 Pratt’s 55,000 55,600 55,600 Moule’s • .11,000 14,000 14,000 Bell’S ------ '24,800 26,000 61930 " 113,400 132,050 111,82'2. Stock— ■ 173,500 2100,057 185,057: Plant, fixtures, * - . fittings 26,000 a 48,687 44,687 Electric- light, - •’ - - heating, etc. 5,000 10,942 10,942 Cash systems 1,500. l,750\ .1,750 Lifts 1,500 l;600“ ItfOO . Total '': " 209,500 263,036 244,036 Building im- ■ provements . 1,500 ■ 1,750 - 1,750 • Grand total 324,400 396,836 357,608