The Daily News WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1934. FIRE LOSSES.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 November 1934, Page 4

The Daily News

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1934. FIRE LOSSES.

OFFICES: NEW PLYMOUTH. Cnrrie Street. STRATFORD, Broadway. HAWERA, High Street

In six years the annual cost of losses by fires in the Dominion has been reduced by nearly a million pounds. That is the chief item in the report for the year 1933 of the Inspector of Fire Brigades, Mr. R. GirlingButcher. In the year 1928 the losses reached the astounding figure of £1,636,118. Last year they had been reduced to £644,781, a figure that was better by nearly a quarter of a million than that of the year before, when the losses amounted to £867,714. Although the reduction is very satisfactory, fire losses are still considerably higher than they should be in a community well equipped with fire-fighting staffs and appliances, and with most of it urban districts rapidly emerging from the “mixed” settlements of old and new style buildings into towns and cities in which a certain amount of community planning has reduced the risk of fire by stipulating that in the more congested areas only buildings of a certain standard of construction will be permitted. Even last year’s fire losses entailed a cost of 8s 4d per head of population, and while this is a vast improvement on the £1 2s 6d loss per head in 19‘28, it is still a higher drain upon the country’s resources than is necessary. As Mr. Girling-Butcher points out, the fire loss figures do not accurately reflect the true position. They are based on payments made by insurance companies, and those payments are for replacement values only. As building replacements were less costly last year than they were five years previously, the fire-loss figures for 1933 represent lower values rather than a lesser quantity of property destroyed. Even allowing for this factor, however, the fact remains that during the period of depression the Dominion has passed through there has been no serious epidemic of fires. Such epidemics are not unknown in bad times, and the reduction in fire losses during the past five years may be regarded as some tribute to the commercial morality of New Zealand, as well as to the increased care to avoid fires that has been developed as part of the general economy that has perforce been in operation. Moreover, inquiries into the origin and cause of fires have become much more frequent in the past six years, and while this has not resulted in the discovery of many deliberately planned fires, the increased vigilance of insurance agencies and other authorities has had a good effect. Last year there was a definite decrease in the number of suspicious fires, only seven coroner’s inquiries into fires being thought necessary, and only 13 prosecutions for arson, as compared with 28 in the year 1931. There can be no doubt of the deterrent effect upon the weak or criminally minded of the knowledge that inquiry is almost certain to follow any fire the cause of which was not clearly accidental. As to the causes of fires “carelessness” is still easily the most frequent and most mischievous. The unguarded domestic fire is still the principal fire hazard, while fires from electrical equipment left on after use, smokers’, carelessness, use of petrol and kerosene, matches left where children play with them, unwatched burning rubbish, and other careless habits all added their quota to the national loss. Seven fatalities due to fires were recorded during the year, the same number as in the preceding twelve months, though considerably fewer people were injured. Thirty cases of injury were reported last year, and in only 17 were they serious. The whole report makes it evident once more that further prevention of fire loss is largely a matter for the general public. Fire boards and brigades are, speaking generally, alert and enthusiastic in their endeavour to prevent or minimise losses, but until carelessness is regarded as a breach of true citizenship as well as a potential cause of much personal loss, so long will the Dominion continue to deserve the reputation of a country in which fire hazards are unduly high. There is no agency of destruction that is so devastating as fire, and fire losses, whatever personal precaution in the shape of insurance may be taken, must in the long run be borne by the community. If that fact were more generally recognised the development of community carefulness would be more rapid than it is, although the decrease in losses already shown is a matter for satisfaction.

PUKEKURA PARK SPORTSGROUND. With the enlargement of Pukekura Park and the necessary extension of the control of the borough council over the whole of the park area, the sportsground committee that has for many years controlled the playing area of what used to be called “the Recreation Ground” has ceased to function. Although it is obvious that the borough council is the proper controlling authority for a public domain so important as Pukekura Park, the work of the sportsground committee deserves full recognition by the public. For many years and with exceedingly limited resources the committee has continued the improvement and development of the playing area. There is still work io be done when means permit, but on relinquishing the task the committee is justified in claiming that when doing so it has brought the Pukekura sportsground to a condition that compares favourably with that of any public playing area in the Dominion. The natural advantages of the site have been made the most of, drainage and other essentials to upkeep have been, carried out, and the committee has worked in cordial harmony with football, cricket, and other athletic organisations in order that the best use might be made of the playing area. The arrangement with the borough park committee that the funds accumulated by the superseded sportsground committee should be earmarked for further improvements to the playing area is likely to meet with general approval. The sportsground is one of the assets of the town, and there is no reason to believe that the borough council will be any less vigilant in its care and development than the retiring committee. Public opinion will be sufficiently strong to prevent any future neglect, and the attitude of the present council towards the town reserves is sufficient guarantee that the Pukekura sportsground will receive fair—and more than fail'—treatment under the new control. It is a pity the retiring sportsground committee did not accept the council’s invitation to have .•epresentation on the borough reserves committee, as that might have made continuity of policy easier, and the experience of many years might have been of value if placed at the disposal of the municipal authorities. However, there is no reason to fear that any information or assistance from the retiring committee will be withheld if. it is sought by the borough park committee. The members of that committee recognise, as does the public, the very fine work accomplished by the retiring sportsground committee, and it is for no fault or slackness on the part of members that their functions cease as part of a wider conception of jhe duties of a municipality in regard to its public heritages.