ABOUT BAMBOO CLUMP

Taranaki Daily News, 11 April 1935, Page 7

ABOUT BAMBOO CLUMP

IS THERE FIRE DANGER?

PROBLEM FOR WAITARA COUNCIL

LEGAL POSITION DISCUSSED

COMPLAINT FROM NEIGHBOUR

A clump of bamboos was the innocent cause of an animated and lengthy discussion on the rights and duties of a borough council in connection with fire dangers complained of at the monthly meeting of the Waitara Borough Council last night. The participants in the debate digressed into abstract and involved argument before it was finally decided to adopt a suggestion on the letter that caused the discussion.

The bamboos in question had been the subject of discussion at a previous council meeting. A complaint had been received from a neighbour of the owner of the property containing the clump that it constituted a fire danger to his house, and he asked that the council order its removal. The council then obtained a solicitor’s opinion that it could take no action in the matter. A New Plymouth firm of solicitors wrote stating that the complainant had had the bamboo clump inspected by the superintendent of the fire brigade and as a result the chairman of the Fire Board (Cr. Spurdie) had reported that the bamboos constituted a fire danger.

In face of that information it was suggested that it was the duty of the council to take some action in the matter. A written report from the superintendent could not be supplied as apparently he took the attitude that there was no statutory duty upon him to give written reports. Nevertheless the council could if it were considered necessary, obtain verification by reference direct to the superintendent or to the chairman of the board. It was noted that the by-law concerning such matters was not applicable but, if that were so, it was suggested that the council should empower itself, by enactment of an appropriate by-law, to deal with such a situation. Before the council could act on the verbal report of the fire superintendent, said the Mayor, it should ask the Fire Board to obtain a written report as to whether the clump constituted a fire danger. POWERS OF FIRE BOARD.

The Fire Board had no power to interfere with private buildings, said Cr. H. Spurdie. The superintendent had inspected the clump when asked, said Cr. Spurdie, who stated he had a written report before him. “Would you read it?” he was asked. . He did not know whether he would be justified in doing that as the report had not been considered by the Fire Board, he replied. A special meeting would have to be called as the Fire Board met only every three months. It was not desired to place Cr. Spurdle in an invidious position, said the Mayor. It would be better if Cr. Spurdie waited till the report was officially considered by the Fire Board and receive authority to hand it over. Was not the matter’ one for the two ratepayers concerned? asked Cr. Wakely. There was a court of law for them to settle their differences.

The council had a duty to perform, said the Mayor.

The council’s'solicitors had advised the council that it had no power in the matter, pointed out Cr. Middleton. It seemed the complainant should pursue his own remedy. The council was entitled, to information on the matter, pointed out the Mayor, if there was a fire danger in the town.

The council should draft a resolution asking the Fire Board to report on the clump, suggested Cr. Spurdie. The Fire Board’s duty was to see that danger spots were known. To Cr. Reeves the Mayor said- he thought the clump was dangerous in dry weather. Cr. Glasgow said he was reluctant to speak on the matter but drew an analogy. If a ratepayer reported that his neighbour was storing explosives in his house the council would be obliged to make an inspection. In this case the ratepayer had made a complaint of a fire danger, backed up by a report by the superintendent. The council’s obvious course was to get an official report from the Fire Board.

The Mayor moved that the Fire Board be asked for a report and the motion was carried.