THE SEACLIFF LUNATIC ASYLUM.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 838, 23 March 1888, Page 22

THE SEACLIFF LUNATIC ASYLUM.

REPORT OP THE ROYAL COMMISSION.

The Royal Commissioners appointed by the Governor to report on the condition of the Seaeliff Asylum building, near Dunedin (Messrs H. P. Higginson, M. Inst., C. E., W. H. Skinner, and B. W. Mountfort, architects) have presented their report to his Excellency. It is a very bulky document, of which we can only give an outline. The Commissioners state that the building is in a very unsatisfactory condition, partly through neglect to drain the site and partly through defects in construction. They point out that the architect wrote to the Public Works Department in October, 1879, recommending certain drainage works, but that he received no reply for 30 months, and that during this time Sir James Hector also urged the need of such drainage. The Commissioners consider the architect blamable for not insisting on the drainage if he really deemed it essential, and the Public Works Department blamable for paying no attention to the architect’s application or Sir James Hector’s warning. They are not satisfied that these drainage works would have been sufficient to prevent all mischief, but they certainly would have been advantageous. The building is not in an absolutely dangerous state, hut a close watch on the progress of the settlement (which is still going on) will be imperative, so that if the movement should increase with formidable rapidity timely arrangements might he made for the lemovai of the patients and their accommodation elsewhere. They advise that the resident

carpenter should take frequent observations, record them regularly in a diary, and report monthly to the District Engineer. The damage to the building comprises a fracture in the front gable and a settlement of the east end of the north wing, while the ambulatory is rent and fissured and bent to a very serious extent. The Commissioners think these will not effect the stability of the building if timely remedial steps are taken, but there are good grounds for anxiety at the development of such cracks and distortions, and appearances indicate that the west wall must be in a state of disintegration, while the other walls have sunk through settlement, thus causing extensive fractures across the piers and arches. The site has always been known to he untrustworthy, and failing due drainage must have been, a mere plastic puddle, so that irregular settlement was almost inevitable in the absence of adequate precautions. The supports of the east wall are too scant in area considering the material used, and but for the assistance of the continuous foundations the whole east wall would have become a ruin. The wall is also weak and faulty in construction, aud is further weakened by being cut into for the floor joists and perforated by a great number of air flues. The Commissioners consider that the excessive settling has been due to the lack of good drainage, the want of broad and deep footings, and of cross tie, and the weak method of construction generally.. The bricks and concrete used are pronounced not of the quality required by the spirit of the specifications, although the Commissioners say they “will not go so far as to say the material and workmanship are absolutely bad and utterly defective. ” The inspector honestly strove to secure good work, but was at great disadvantage through the indecisive and inexact wording of the specifications. The specifications are stated to be exceedingly defective, very loose and quite insufficient. The foundations are inadequate, a serious departure having been made from the contract plan in this respect, reducing the bearing surface which contributed to the drainage. This departure was a serious error of judgment on the part of the architect and inspecter, the architect being the person responsible. The turrets and centre gable are also insecure, and such large projecting masses ought net to have been built on so slim a wall. The Commissioners advise that the site should be thoroughly drained ; that no attempt he made to underpin or repair the defective building, as that would be expensive and unsatisfactory in its result, but that the faulty parts should be pulled down and rebuilt, the turrets being also taken down, and the stone staircase done away with, a wooden one being substituted.

Mr W. N. Blair, who was engineer-in-charge at the time, has printed his own statement, in which lie maintains that the architect’s application for drainage works was duly answered through the proper channels, and that the whole responsibility lay with the architect, who failed to do what he should have done to ensure the safety of the building.