BUILDING BY-LAWS DISREGARDED

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 16, 14 October 1942, Page 4

BUILDING BY-LAWS DISREGARDED

The complaint by the Lower Hutt City -Council that the State Housing Department proposes to disregard local by-laws in the construction of five “experimental” houses at Waiwetu is by no means the first of its kind. From time to time the department has been taken to task for violations of building codes to which private individuals are obliged to adhere. fl he usual plea has been that depaiture from minimum construction requirements, as laid down in bylaws, is justified for reasons of economy or expediency. In ceitain minor instances there may have been room for compromise, but it would appear that the Waiwetu experiment—behind which is reported to loom a 6000-house scheme—involves a radical change in building specifications—a change which, by accepted by-law standards, is plainly undesirable. It was stated by the Mayor of Lower Hutt, at tins weeks meeting of the council, that the proposed method of building the. houses in question was “revolutionary.” Perhaps the word “reactionary would better describe the planning of dwellings with barely eight feet of space between the floors and the ceilings, and 2 x 2-inch partition studs. It is true that provision was made for slightly stronger studs, after attention had been called to this weakness, but seemingly the department intends, apart from this single amendment, to.pioceed with its experiment. The length of the stud (which determines the height of a room, and consequently the amount of air space in it, proportionate to its size) will be eight feet, in spite of the fact that the bv-laws demand a minimum of nine feet. Quite apart from the possibly serious questions of health and hygiene which may arise, this flouting of local law by the Government is entirely wrong in principle. The need for, and propriety of, existing by-laws governing house construction have never been questioned by Parliament or the people. On the contrary they have been required and approved. Were this not the case they would not exist. Yet the Minister of Housing proposes, as a matter of departmental convenience, to thrust these by-laws on one side. Hie stand he has taken appears to be such that the local governing body can only appeal to the Municipal Association, the Standards Institute and the Town Planning Board, and hope in the meantime that “the Government will see the error of its ways. This situation, as set out at the council meeting, bespeaks dictatorship on the one hand and a lamentable impotence on the other hand. A State department acts as a law unto itself; while the people of the district have to be told that it is feared the Minister has been “sold the idea” of disregarding their building bv-laws. Sold by whom, and for what reason or pretext? The people have a right to be told the full story of this proposed experiment. The conditions of it appear, thus far, to be such that it is not only threatening secure and healthful standards of building but also holding the law up to contempt.