NEW BUILDING BILL

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21342, 17 November 1932, Page 14

NEW BUILDING BILL

VARIOUS CRITICISMS

VIEWPOINT OF ARCHITECTS

FULLER INFORMATION SOUGHT

Although tlio provisions of tlio Building Construction Bill, introduced in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, arc known to be similar to thoso of the bill proposed, last year, architects, local body engineers, Mayors and others interested were in many instances disinclined to comment on it yesterday until they had actually studied the terms of the bill in detail.

The main object of tho bill is to ensure that proper safely precautions aro taken in the designing and construction of buildings. Last year's bill was withdrawn on account of the opposition it aroused among architects and in various other quarters, and since then the Government has had opportunity to be informed fully on the various points at issue. Criticism was directed against last year's bill, and is being directed against its present successor, on the ground that it introduces a new form of bureaucratic control and imposes an objectionable special tax on building operations at a time when they need every possible encouragement. Tho propensity which Government departments have for growing and spreading and making work for themselves is widely feared. Suggestions of Architects

In commenting on the present bill, Mr. R. A. Lippincott, chairman of the Auckland branch of tho New Zealand Institute of Architects, said that so far as he was aware no ono m Auckland had yet seen a copy of it. " I cannot say as yet whether or not tho Government has made the basic changes which the architects required," ho said. "Wo thought that tho architects did not have proper representation on the proposed Building Committee, and wo also took tho strongest exception to the fact that tho Public Works Department had an over-riding authority as far as permits and inspection were concerned.

" While wo were quite willing that authority should be vested in tho Minister to give an officer of the department rights of inspection in certain special cases, we were not willing that that right should be in tho bill. At present we cannot tell whether that authority is vested generally in the Public Works Department through the bill, or only in special cases after complaint made to the Minister.

" We were very much opposed to the department interfering in the private practice of building in any way whatsoever. It does not look to ine—although I speak subject to fuller information—as if our objections have been met."

Representation on Committee

On the matter of representation on tho committee, Mr. Lippincott said it looked as if the committee would be overwhelmingly of the engineering profession. They had no objection to engineers being there, but they did object to them being in an overwhelming majority, because even building engineering and architecture were quite separate things. The architects did not want to be eternally out-voted and to have their point of view hopelessly submerged. Several of the provisions of the new bill were discussed by another architect. One thing oil which they were all agreed, he said, was that the fixed charge of one-eighth of 1 per cent on the total cost of building was quite out of place. They did not think the charge should be imposed at all, but if it had to be made, the proposed sum was ridiculously too largo for a normal building year. There was no need to create a special research committee here. It was only a matter of getting the information available from other countries.

He could not see any necessity to have on the committee one engineer representing the Municipal Association and another representing tho counties. Generally throughout New Zealand councils with their own inspectors were in a position to see that the work was carried out reasonably and it should bo left to them. Method Considered Wrong

The Mayor of Mount Eden, Mr. T. McNab, said the primary object aimed at by the bill was sound enough, but the method was all wrong. It just meant more officials, and that was going to advance the cost of building again. The Government had had its report from experts. "Local bodies are doing their-part of the job quite well," he said. " Let the Government supply us with draft regulations and an outline of how to put them into force, and that is all that is required. There is no need to waste the country's money in the way proposed." Mr. G. Tyler, • the city engineer, to whom the outline of the new bill was referred, said he did not see anything to take exception to in the report before him. but he would require to see the fulJ terms of the bill before passing any definite opinion.

It is obvious that, apart from any action the Government might take, public and professional opinion has been thoroughly aroused on the need for sound and safe building methods and the grave dangers of poor materials, design or workmanship. Most local bodies have not as yet made any alterations in their building by-laws, as they have been waiting for some universal standard for the Dominion to be adopted.

Til the larger cities, at any rate, special attention has been given by the civic authorities to the design and construction of all large buildings. Architects have felt it incumbent upon them to provide a wider margin of safety than in the past, and the public has' been in a mood to be easily persuaded of the wisdom of this. All this seems to render less necessary the general provisions of the bill.