BALLANTYNE FIRE INQUIRY HEARS FIRST OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED

Wanganui Chronicle, 29 January 1948, Page 6

BALLANTYNE FIRE INQUIRY HEARS FIRST OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED

Counsel's Comment On The Activity Of Brigade

(Press Association)

CHRISTCHURCH, Jan. 28

When the Royal Commission inquiring into the circumstances surrounding the fire in premises of Ballantyne s, Ltd., last November, when 41 people lost their lives, continued its sittings this afternoon, the first of several witnesses to be called was heard. He was still in the box when the commission adjourned until tomorrow.

' Continuing his opening address for the Crown this morning, Mr. G. G. Watson devoted attention to the activity of the fire brigade, referring to how it was called and the steps it took on arrival at the scene to fight the fire.

Sir Harold Johnson, K.C., preaided, and with him were Messrs. A. W. Croskery (president of the Federation of Labour), A. S. Dickson (Auckland City engineer) and C. A. Woolley (superintendent of the Wellington Fire > Brigade).

i Brigade’s Activities

Discussing the activities of the fire brigade, Mr. Watson said he proposed to cover the despatch of the brigade and its actions at the fire. The first call was received by the brigade at 3.46 p.m. at the station in Richfield Street. The general alarm switch was then thrown over, with the result that No. 11 and No. 1 motor and a salvage van left for the lire. The electric ladder did not leave at that stage. The station officer was of the opinion on receipt of the call that as it was to a basement lire he was not called on to send the ladder at that time.

The engines and van left the station at 3.46 p.m., continued Mr. Watson. No. 1 engine stopped outside Death's in Colombo Street. On that machine was Officer Burrowes, who, in the early stage ol the operations was in charge of the brigade at the lire. No. 11 was in charge of Officer Stevenson. It pulled up in Colombo Street between the alley on the south side of Congreve's Building near Reece's shop. Just before 4 p.m., as a result of further calls being received, a further general alarm was given and No. 9 motor and the electric extension ladder were dilspatched. No. 9 motor was in charge ot Officer Shields. Just as they le.t the station, the bells went for a brigade call. As a result of this the duty officer telephoned a number of suburban stations and the Army Department and Air Department at Wigram. These suburban brigades turned out with a surprising degree of promptitude.

Conflict Of Evidence

Watson said that, concerning the actions of the brigade at the fire there would be some conflict oi evidence between personnel of the brigade and civilian bystanders who saw the fire. Burrowes saw smoke , issuing fijom an open window on the first floor of Congreve’s building and orders were given to prepare a hose. Burrowes and Stevenson went into the alley, from which they saw smoke emerging. Burrowes would say that he met a person there who told him the fire in the basement was caused by a cable and they would find the entrance through a door on the righthand side of the alley. The smoke in the alley was so dense that they could not maxe much progress, so they came out and got respirators. They went back, but could not locate the door referred to. Burrowes would say he came out leaving Stevenson with an unused delivery. Stevenson stayed there for nine or 10 minutes until Burrowes returned. No use had been made of the hose in that nine minutes. Burrowes asked the man whom he had seen and whom he knew as Roger Ballantyne, if there was another means of getting in. Roger Ballantyne took Burrowes down Colombo Street into Cashel Street in through the main entrance at the corner right through the ground floor, where they were able to look down' the goods lift well. Burrowes would say that when he looked down he cold see no sign of fire and considered it an impracticable way of getting to the fire. Roger Ballantyne, however, would say that smoke was visible and that there was an electric flash. They then went back to Colombo Street, where Burrowes noticed that the volume of smoke had increased.

First Active Attack

At that stage he ordered a delivery of water and it was directed through an open window on the first floor of Congreve’s Building. Thus the first active attack was made two storeys above the fire in the basement, said said Mr. Watson. Burrowes then found Stevenson in the alley with the original hose unused. Burrowes could not hear water playing on the fire. It would appear that during all this time the rest of the brigade personnel were not doing anything effective in fighting the fire. Burrowes then saw flames and realised that it was a major blaze, so he issued a brigade call, said Mr. Watson.

Mr. Watson said that the commission would have to consider whether the extension ladder was sufficiently modem for a city like Christchurch, whether the failure to despatch the ladder in the first instance was or was not a contributory factor in the loss of life, whether there was or was not justification for the fact that at no time was the ladder used for rescue operations. On its arrival the ladder had been pulled up just on the comer of Cashel Street. It was raised and a fireman ascended it with a hose. He said within a minute or two the fireman was ordered down, the ladder was pulled down and the machine was backed into Colombo Street. A photograph showed that the ladder was inactive when Ken Ballantyne was rescued. To Mr. Croskery, Mr. Watson said that that was after Miss Kennedy and Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Nash had jumped. Subsequently the ladder was used for fire-fighting. “At no stage was this ladder used for any attempt at the rescue of the occupants,’’ said Mr. Watson. “Questions will arise as to whether it could or could not be effectively used, and as to how long it would take to manoeuvre.” He added that tests had been made of the times taken to operate the ladder, hpt in fairness to the brigade he woultf say that there was no traffic

congestion when these were made, so that the times were probably shorter. After detailing tests made, he said the ladder could reach the first floor windows without fouling the power lines, but it could not reach the second floor without fouling the wires.

Mr. Watson went on to describe how the fire was ultimately stopped. Two leads of hose had been taken through the tearooms and these, with the fire hose maintained by the shop, were used to check the lire at the tearooms. Two firemen and two civilians stayed there at a considerable risk, thereby saving the balance of the floor.

Mr. Watson said that that concluded the narrative part of the Crown’s case, and he proposed to deal briefly with expert evidence that would be called.

To tho chairman (Sir Harold Johnston, K.C.) he said there were 458 employees. They had no estimate of the number of people who would be shopping there at the time.

“Architects will be called who will comment on and criticise the buildings from the point of view of the prevention of fire, the absence of adequate means of preventing the spread of the fire and smoke, the inadequacy of the means of egress, the effect of structural alterations made to the buildings in facilitating the spread of the fire, and the lack of a sprinkler system. It would be necessary to discuss the existing by-laws and regulations covering fire escapes. It would appear that the only existing regulations which applied to Ballantyne’s Buildings were certain provisions under the Factories’ Act and the provisions of the Christchurch Fire Board’s fire escape regulations, 1930. Part 7of the New Zealand standard code of buildings by-laws would have to be considered.

Requirements Met

“I am bound to say that the requirements as to fire escapes made under the factories’ Act have been complied with by Ballantyne’s. All these regulations require is a special fire escape to reach every floor above the ground floor,” said Mr. Watson. Dealing with the Christchurch Fire Board by-law of 1930, Mr. Watson said the by-law was primarily designed to define the number and type of fire escapes in new buildings. It was based on the principle of the number of people in the building. In dealing with existing buildings and Ballantyne’s Buildings, there was a weakness. “The owner of a building erected before the passing of it did not have to do anything to comply with it until he was notified to do so by the brigade superintendent. As far as the Crown can ascertain, no such notice had been served on Ballantyne’s, and therefore there could be no foundation for a breach of the Christchurch Fire Board’s by-law, or of the Factories’ Act. That, of course, is apart from the question of whether there was a legal or moral duty on the owner of a building to see that his building was safe.” Mr. Watson said that one witness would urge that the onus be put on the owner of an old building to make his building comply with the requirements for a new building. He added that in the case of many old buildings it would be impossible for them to be altered for full compliance with the standard by-law. If that was so, the owner could be told to instal a sprinkler system.

No Defects in Cable

Mr. Watson said that lay witnesses would say one ol the Ballantynes had jumped to the conclusion that the fire was due to an electric cable. It had been tested by State hydro experts, who would say they could find no defects and that the fire was not caused by it. Scientific experts would listen to the evidence and endeavour to conclude why the fire travelled with such explosive rapidity.

"I propose in view of the gravity of the matters before the Commission and of the serious implications they may have for some of the parties, to indicate for their information oui present and tentative view as to matters we think, will emerge from evidence which will call for an answer, but I wish to make it clear that they are not submissions to the Commission or charges; they are merely preliminary statements which may be of help and they are:

(1) The absence of adequate measures to prevent a spread of the fire and smoke.

(2> Existence of numerous open ings between the buildings without adequate smoke and fire protection. (3) The absence of sufficient or adequate means of egress from the buildings.

(4> ’the absence of any sprinkler system.

(51 The possible contribution made to the spread of the fire by the considerable use of painted pinex boatding.

“Further, as to the Ballantyne’s management failure:

<ll To have stafl training in fire drill and evacuation practice. (2) Failure to provide in the buildings adequate fire alarm apparatus. ’3) Failure at the time of the fire to carry out any co-ordinated, systematic evacuation of the outlding within a reasonable time after the management was aware of the fire.

<4> rhe late time taken in ensuring that an effective call reached the fire brigade.

As to the fire brigade the following questions are asked:

(11 Whether adequate equipment and personnel were available for despatch to the lire, and were in fact despatched.

12) The question as to whether there was not a failure to attack the fire decisively and effectively on arrival at the scene.

(3l The question whether when the brigade started its attack its procedure thereafter was on proper lines.

(4) The question whether the brigade discharged its duty in the matter of ensuring the complete evacuation of the building on its arrival, and whether it subsequently took adequate steps in attempting the rescue of those trapped. “To avoid misunderstanding, I wish to reiterate that these matters are tentative and are not to be taken as expressing final views, or as inferring any charge against any person whatsoever. I formulate no suggestions and no criticisms aimed at anybody, and our endeavour has been to unravel the whole of the facts, irrespective of what their ultimate repercussions may be. It may be chat they will be answered during the Crown’s own case.” <

Mr. Watson said that a rumour that the fire was in some way caused or contributed to by use of a timber treatment process in the building was completely without foundation. Police investigations had shown that there had been no such treatment in any part of the building at any material time.

No Fire In Cellar

Evidence that he had not smoked in the cellar in which the fire is supposed to have begun, and that no signs of a fire were seen by him at 3.30 p.m* on the day of the fire, was given by Keith Owen Smith, now a postman. Smith said he was employed by Ballantynes from July 15 until a fortnight after the fire. For the first two months and a-half he helped in display in the furnishing department and then looked after the stock in the cellar, his job being to receive the stock, distribute the stock to departments upstairs and to check the stock. He took his instructions from Mr. Irvine, the buyer, whose office was at the south end of the doorway on the ground floor of Goodman’s building. Mr. R. A. Young (for the Crown): Did you notice anything about the gas meter in the cellar?

Witness: There was always a noticeable smell of gas. When did you first notice it?— When I first went into the cellar. The only ventilation was by two entrances.

Giving his movements on the day of the tire, witness said he was shifting vacuum cleaners from the middle of the cellar to the farther end until after 3 p.m. Stevens came down at either 3.20 p.m. or 3.25 and called out the time, as it was witness’ practice to go to afternon tea at 3.30 with Stokes, who worked with Stevens on the soft furnishing counter. He was in the eastern end of the cellar and replied “Right.” Stevens came down to the cellar for a minute and then wandered off. Witness put on his coat at a table at the west end of the cellar. Two powerful lights were over the table and about 80 smaller lights in the cellar. He left the cellar about 3.30.

Mr. Young: Was there any sign of a fire when you left?

Witness: None at all. You do smoke?—Yes. Have you ever smoked in the cellar?—No, there was a rigid rule against smoking. Definitely, what happened about the door into the men’s cloakroom?—l left it ajar as usual. I cannot remember taking the key away from the lock. Witness said he had afternoon tea in the cafetaria on the second floor with Stokes, Parkinson and Brown, who died in the fire. After eight minutes he went to the furnishing department by way of the main staircase, as he wanted to see Irvine.

Went Out For Smoke

He told him he was “going out the back,” although actually he intended ‘to go to Sutherland’s drapery store, at 627 Colombo Street. He had gone there before, to have a smoke. Irvine did not know he was doing that. Mr. Young: Did you see any sign of fire or smoke? —I noticed nothing. Everything was still normal after you left Irvine?—Yes.

Witness said he was 10 minutes at Sutherlands. When he reached the dispatch department Appleyard and the s electrician (McKay) went past him “at the double.” McKay asked Appleyard where the fire was and the lattpr replied that he thought it was in the furnishing department. Witness had before that heard the fire engine. He doubled in behind them, and reached the south side of the main stairway. He had a look for a split second and saw smoke pouring from the closed fire door of the soft furnishing department. The smoke was noticeable and people were congregating more to the north-east corner of the inquiry counter. The other fire doors were closed, but he did not notice any smoke coming out of them. Roger Ballantyne, Irvine and other members of the staff were there, including (witness) wife.

“Irvine said: ‘Where the hell have you been?’ and said he thought I had been in the cellar,” said witness. “He might have said he thought I was trapped in the cellar. I told him I had been to the conveniences. That was not true. Irvine told me to see Roger Ballantyne and tell him'l was all right. I took my wife into Cashel Street and ran round to Colombo Street. I tried to make myself known, or understood, to the firemen and gave it up. I went back to find my wife, which I did near Whitcombe and Tombs. She had been in a state of collapse because she had heard I had been in the cellars.” Mr. Young: Can you say the lights were on when you got back to the dispatch yard from Sutherlands? Witness: They were off when I got to the shop.

Mr. Young: When you left the cellar what was the condition of the lights?—They were on. I had not noticed any flickering of lights. I had no flex or similar extensions on the lights.

Rats In Cellar

Have you any idea how the fire started rn the cellar?—Not the faintest. Have you ever seen rats in the cellar?—No, but I have seen

signs of them and drew attention to them. When you were working for Ballantynes did you have any tire drill?—No. Did you have any instructions as what to do in a fire?—No. Smith was still in the witness box when the commission adjourned until tomorrow..