A DISPUTED BY-LAW

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11685, 24 November 1923, Page 5

A DISPUTED BY-LAW

I PROTECTION FROM FIRE ARCHITECTS CONCERNED AT COUNCIL’S ACTION. DEPUTATION’S VIEWS. “Tlie committee is, I think, prepared to favourably consider any proposal in the direction of making the enforcement of this by-law as reasonable as possible,” said the chairman of the legislation committee of the City Council yesterday when a deputation from the Wellington Chamber of Commerce waited upon the committee. The subject of discussion was the new by-law governing safety of lift-wells and stairoases. “GREAT CONSTERNATION.” The architects and Chamber of Com merce had met on the matter, said Mr S. A. Longuet, who headed the deputation, and in response to a request received from the chairman of the legislation committee the deputation had now arrived to give its views on the matter. When the by-law had been published it had caiueed great consternation amongst the architects, said Mr Crichton. They were concerned in conserving the owners’ interests, in addition to their other work. The demand of a distance of 20 feet between lift-well and ■stairway was unreasonable, and he produced plans of buildings recently erected in New York and in other large cities showing the provisions for protection to stairways and lift-wells which were madeWHY WAS IT PASSED? They were anxious to know why tho by-law had been passed. They had been under the impression that this had been mooted as an extra fire-escape; but no person would go to the lift-well in the case of a fire He would make for a fire-esoapej for the etairs, or for the nearest window, not for the lift. The whole question of fire-escapea wanted reconsidering and recasting upon the lines of the Melbourne bylaws. In these there wae a provision for the enclosure of lift-wells and staircase in fireproof walls with extra, doors, and did not prohibit the construction of lifx-wells and staircases in the one spot. The by-laws ns they stood in Wellington provided for fireproof walls, but did not go far enough. They provided only for collapsible gates, not for steel protective doors. They should be amended by the provision of eliding doors of metal or of wood, whioh could not he operated from the lift itself so that they could not he .wedged open. It was no use a staircase crossing and recrossing windows. He quoted a case in whioh many girls, imprisoned in a factory, had lost their lives owing to the windows not being protected. CONSULTATION URGED. In framing the by-laws, he thought that the public, as represented by the architects, should he asked to rave their opinion on the matter. The architects were not only there to protect the interests ,of the owner, but also of the public, and were not in the position of opposing any by-law which might he passed. In 'answer to a question by tho chairman, Mr Crichton said that he considered that it would be sufficiently protected by the adoption of fireproof material. He admitted that the staircase and lift-well would act as a funnel in certain fires, and that flames and smoke would escape up it. A CONFERENCE ARRANGED. Mr H. D. Bennett suggested that tho Biffigestions as made by the deputation should be adopted, and a conference arranged between the architects and the council’s officers for their decision to oome before the committee. Mr Crichton raising the point, the committee agreed to advise the council not to confirm the clause involved and to await a further report. The chairman, Mr H. D. Bennett, Superintendent Tait, 'and the city engineer were appointed to confer with the architects on the subject.