MOUNTING COSTS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17612, 30 October 1931, Page 2

MOUNTING COSTS

: BUIIiDING'- CONSTRUCTION . \ ~ CLERKS OT WORKS* r * ' ' ' ’ ' - ' J •" ■ ••• • \!*\ ■ ••• ' >4ri ’• There is, a- sayings that, it-never ; rains but* it'pqftis/ Thb'Biiildmff uonstructioii |j:'j V Ijill, now before tile B6use t says tho ' r ': Dominion, lays it down that in future the cost of building-jnust'bO adddd-to apprec. ciqbjy by , the appointment of A a .clcriUof, works jin every-, case, says a statement' II by,' thft Associated . Chambers' of -tv Commerce-of Now Zealand.' Now-corner the New Zealand Institute of Clerks of ■’ Wbrk Billy,intioduced’-into the' House by.) • Mh IV Fraser, which 1 provides.thut every; v person, : fn'ro-or. company, erecting .almost *f' any building: whatever shall bo compelled under penally to, employ on tho super vision >of-'the"constructional work', a-clerk of works'.registered, under thp,,bill. t; tei-minod tb heap still higher building costs on the. heads of the, comipunity, . they have only to pass this measure and it will automatically fall, into harness with its natural - partner, the Building Construction 'Bill. The two bills together should certainly- deter anybody from building other than houses,- or financially-embarrass 1 those wlio d 6. *- y, ’ In the first-place-the employment of ; a clerk; of works to supervise the erection, reconstruction or alteration of everybuilding is one of the totally unnecessary; and uncalled for provisions of the Build-’ ing ; Construction Bill. The proper function of a clerk of works -is to see thatthe previsions of the contract made between principal and contractor are com 7; plied, with. It is obvious that the powers of a local authority, in respect to supervision should not.'-be delegated toa-clerk b-l of works. i • ‘ Uj The system- which has' stood th& : test of time-is-that , the appointment of/a clerk of works' is left to - the jurisdiction of the architect'and. owner.. Where the owner has complete - confidence in the architect and. in-his contractor, and where there is not a great-, amount of detail in the structure, there; is no good reason why the expense of a clerk of t works should be incurred, Such - a course would make the undertaking; of largo buildirtgs a grave matter from the point of view of'expense. • ; ”7 Tli - enforced employment of cldrks, of works is estimated to. necessitate an in- ' crease in the, cost of building construction of approximately-£50,000 per annum.: In , addition, there is the sum of about £12,500 per annum which- the-'. Government, proposes to collect in special fees on building permits—based on the official *; building-figures for New Zealand for the ■ / year ended March. 31, 1930. Besides _ ’ this, ordinary permittees have to be paid to the local authorities. The-, total burden is more than can be borne by pci-sons or firms erecting buildings other than : small dwellings. ; y.. Although greater security in building construction and design is desirable * throughout New Zealand, the Building Construction Bill "savours of .panic legislation and, seeks to swell the army of in-, ■ spectors and overseers that-alreadyrover- • run the country. Labor , interests have been quick to seize the' opportunity to . introduce a bill providing; fort a., sort of trade union of clerks of works whom all . who build must employ on pain l of peir-‘ ally. .. , Local bodies already possess the machinery to enforce the observance of building design and construction on approved lines.. It is nott yT>t tbo-» lates tq remove from the Building Construction Bill the provisions.in,. of .works. As forihe'Clerkkof-Works'Bill, it can well be consigned ,tp ?oblivion in ■ toto. •