BY-LAWS DISCUSSED.

Waipa Post, Volume XXIV, Issue 1410, 26 June 1923, Page 5

BY-LAWS DISCUSSED.

SEWERAGE REQUIREMENTS VARIED. STERN MEASURES FORECASTED. There was an animated discussion at last night’s meeting of the Te Awanmtu Borough Council concerning the by-law requirements, particularly | regarding the regulation of the sewi erage services. j The foreman (Mr J. Archer), in the | course of his report, stated that in I regard to house drainage contractors | and after what transpired at the last meeting of the Council, “I refused to ! test any drains that were then awaiting inspection until the drainlayer had been up to the oflice and brought such plans as he had there deposited up to date (by that I mean either put the distances on between junction and chambers or put the scale on to the ■ plan to which it was drawn). When ' 1 had found out that that was done I ; tested their drains, and am quite pre- : pared to sign them as being well laid, but in two cases there is a greater ; distance than 30 feet between the in- | spection eyes. Therefore, according to the exact reading of the by-law I they are not in accordance with same. | I might say that this is the first in- ■ stance in which I have ever experienced in my 20 odd years municipal ! work in New Zealand that a by-law of i this description should be carried out I to the letter. Had the leaving out of | an inspection pipe at every 30 feet of ! drain been some detriment to the | working of that drain I could quite | understand the position, but when it j is only for the benefit of clearing a i block I certainly don’t consider that j it is necessary that they should lie j that, close, when drain rods can he I utilised up to 100 feet or more. If the 1 drainage engineer is so keen to have the by-laws carried out to the letter why are the main vents both in the j streets and those that are acting as ! main vents on private property not i carried out Lo the by-law, which reads 1 that, all main vents shall be carried ! n p 30 feet. Another sanitary byi law that is not being carried out is j the one regarding waste pipes from I sinks, baths and wash basins. The portion of these wastes that aie inside the main building should be in either lead or galvanised screwed iron and they should he trapped, but this ! is not being done in all cases. It appears that unless the owner especially asks for it. and provided the galvanised iron waste pipes are not leaki ing they are not touched whether they are trapped or not. The public urinal at the rear of the Commercial Hotel in Roche Street has the water supply connected to it direct off the supply pipe instead of out of a cistern ; this is contrary to the by-law. In by-law 131 it states that traps are to be placed as close to fixtures as possible, yet in by-law 135 it states that traps shall be fixed immediately adjacent to its intake. Which of these by-laws have to lie carried out? There is no mention in the by-law of a grease trap being required, and I wish to report that the grease trap at the Commercial Hotel was blocked up owing to its not being cleaned out. The drain was also blocked at the Buchan trap because the mushroom top on the fresh air inlet was broken off a,nd it being adjacent to the coal bin bits of coal had fallen into it. I might also report that this drain was opened up by an unlicensed drainlayer, which is contrary to the by-law. Regarding grease traps, I would recommend that a by-law be framed for them making it imperative that they should have trays in and covers on that can he lifted off to enable them to be cleaned out. In the grease tank at the Commercial Hotel two bricks and a j piece of wood have been left under ■ the outlet pipes and this would cm*- : tainly assist in the cause of block- ! ing.” The Mayor said the Council is dealing with what is an apparent discrepancy in the observance of the by-law. The points raised as to the spacing of the inspection eyes in the drain were perhaps for discussion, but. the bylaws were in existence and it was for the Council to first decide whether the by-law should he departed from. ’ Cr MeOf'-hie thought it, was only leading to confusion. The by-laws were there, and the Council could only observe them as they stand.

Mr Toogood said he had nothing to do with t h e framing of the by-laws. They had been adopted by the Council, approved by the Public Health Department and were what is known as the model by-laws for adoption by the local authorities. As a servant of the Council he, as engineer, had to follow the by-law. There was little room for discretion in these matters. The private contractor had to recognise the by-law as a specification—it was a s'andard that had to be followed, and if there was discretion allowed’ as to what is right or wrong there woul 1 be confusion and confliction. Mr Toogood said he was not present to discuss the rights and wrongs of the by-law but he merely desired to point out that the by-'laws as they stand are not being carried out, that there is altogether too much discretion allowed and that therefore the Council is on the verge of a very serious position. The system of recording the plans of the service lines bad been insisted on by them as engineers even in the face of disregard on the part of the various foremen. The nlan was intended as a safeguard for the Council and as a protection for the ratepayer. Mr Toogood said there were certain bylaws not rightly enforced and e"olained the purport of these by-laws, though he named other cases where the foreman was reported to have told certain people that they iieed not do this or that, advising them to go right contrary to certain by-laws. Quoting from some of the plans he showed how many requirements had not been carried out. He appealed to the Council to regard the importance of this question as a very serious matter. The present book of plans is not in order, even though it was certified to by the foreman. Any school boy could read the by-law and see what is required. It did not matter whether the by-law is strictly right or wrong. The point is that He by-law is there and should he accepted as a standard.

A sewerage contractor said that he had been told by the foreman that there was no need for the inspection pipe after a gully trap after a straight run.

Mr Toogood said he was not prepared to say whether this by-law is right or wrong. The Council had to stand by its by-laws and its officials should see that there is no discretion allowed beyond that expressly stated by the Council. Cr Peate said it was distinctly wrong that any sewerage contractor should have been allowed to vary a signed plan duly lodged with the Council. He cited a case where a plan had beeu varied after attestation hv the Council’s foreman.

Cr McCarroll thought it the height of absurdity that the Council should have permitted a contractor to alter the plan after the certificate of its official had been given. As totlie bylaw, they could regard it that these came from a very high authority and should he accepted and observed by the Council. The Council should insist that its officials carry out the strict reading of the by-law instead of a personal interpretation of what is right or wrong. There had been no fault whatsoever with the main sewerage scheme and it seemed to have withstood any and every attempt to criticise it. The trouble seemed to come entirely when the private service lines went into the hands of contractors. The Council should see to it that the by-laws are a strict specification to be observed without personal discretion of right or wrong.

Answering the foreman’s statement re sewer vents, Mr Toogood said the by-law condition need not apply if it was on a public street where there is uo danger of sewer gas entering any building.' If the public sewer vent on a road is right near a building it must he carried clear of the building just as is stipulated for vents from private sewers. The foreman recalled a discrepancy lie had pointed out some time ago, where a trap had not been put in in conformity to the by-law, and this at the instigation of the engineers. Mr Toogood replied that this was done as a temporary arrangement. This was an unformed street and the proper vent would he put in when permanent work is done. This was a temporary expedient, and was perfectly safe from a health point of view. It was done for a borough’s own convenience and not for the benefit of an individual.

Cr Montefiore said it was breaking the by-law, nevertheless. The foreman said the vent was not 20 feet high. It is in private property and therefore was a distinct breach of the by-law. The Mayor said this variation had been sanctioned by the Council. Cr McGechie asked what was to he done. It Avas no use discussing the wrongs—the only thing to do was to find a remedy. Cr Downes thought the Council should study its by-laws and see whether or not they are reasonable. He would like to know whether the recorded plans are safe or not. Mr Toogood said he Avas prepared to advise the Council re alteration to the by-laws, but that A\ms another point.' The thing to remember was that the book of reference Avas open to serious question and the system adopted in the past was unsafe. If contractors were allowed discretion there would be all manner of difficulty.

Regarding the class .of waste pipe under the buildings, the Mayor thought the Council should see that no undue outlay was imposed on the property owners. The public health official AV.ho had to pass the plumbing side of the installation had expressed a wish to confer Avith the Council, and it Avas therefore decided to ask this official to report on these matters. Referring to the Commercial Hotel installation. Cr Peate said he had been informed that the then borough foreman had drawn the specification on Avhich the Avork had been done. The present foreman added that he had been advised that, by arrangement, the present installation had been done temporarily pending the licensing poll.

Regarding grease traps, Mr Toogood said the by-law was weak in this respect, but these could he insisted on by the strict reading of the by-law debarring the flow of hot fluids. Concerning the report that a drain had been opened up by an unlicensed drainlaver, Cr Downes said that it seemed there was a wholesale disregard of the by-law. It all came back to the matter of whether the requirement is reasonable or not, and he suggested a report from the engineer and a special meeting to go fully into the matter. The Mayor proposed that the foreman be asked to supply the name of the unregistered man interfering with a drain, so that the Works Committee could deal with the case at its next meeting. The Mayor said that now the Council was appraised of the defects in the plans of the private service sewers it had to be decided on a course to remedy the trouble. Cr McGechie said the Council was placed in a most ridiculous position. After having passed the work it was now in the position of (having to admit faults. The thing was to see that no more similar trouble occurred in the future.

The Mayor thought that plans that showed any alteration in conformity with the demand made a fortnight ago should be verified. For instance, one drainlaver 1 ad come along and varied his plans—-these variations should be inspected to assure that the work was in accordance With the plan. It would be for the Council to deal with any contractor whose markings _ on the plan were irregular or not in keeping with the work. It was finally decided that the book of plans be handed to the Works Committee to verify the markings on the plans and report to the Council.

Mr Toogood said again that he could only respect the by-laws as the by-laws adopted by the Council. He was not standing by the by-laws in their entirety and be suggested a few amendments to make them reasonable and have limits set which nobody could misread or exceed. He proposed that be should have authoritv to confer with the Health Department, hear their argument on various points, and submit the official view and his own opinion thereon for the later consideration of the Oovncß.