HUTT VALLEY HOUSING

Dominion, Volume 36, Issue 18, 16 October 1942, Page 4

HUTT VALLEY HOUSING

Reply To Allegations By Mayor Of Lower Hutt

(To the Editor). Sir; —I observe in your publication that Mr. Andrews, the mayor of Lower Hutt City, ably supported by the leader wpter of your paper, is again, at his old game of endeavouring to discredit the Department, as both of you have ■ been guilty of doiug since that depart-, ment’s inception. The following is my reply to these stupid and unwarranted allegations:— During the present lull in the department's building activities, the department, has taken this opportunity to review and analyse its past standards of comfort and construction. As a result of this, a new plan and structural methods based on prefabrication have been evolved. It was decided to erect five experimental houses which are relatively unique in structural design. The main feature in this new type of house, as compared with standard houses, is that whereas, m the latter both exterior walls and interior walls were used to support the roof structure, the new design provides for more scientific dispositions of timbers enabling the exterior walls only, to take the complete roof load. The result of this is that the interior partitions may be reduced in size with subsequent economies in materials. It thus becomes practicable for the interior partitions to be wholly prefabricated; that is to say, they can be constructed in factories, with doors and ot'her fittings, and transported complete to the site. The department sought the co-operation of the Lower Hutt City Council in tne building of five houses, which are larger in area and have a higher comfort standard, and are better equipped than tiie department’s present typical house. Hie only departure from the existing by-laws of the Lower Hutt City Council is in the disposition and size of the. structural members. Full representation was made to Mr. Andrews personally explaining to him exactly that the department only regarded these houses structurally as an experiment ; but an experiment based on sound building knowledge and science, determined on only alter careful research in the best modern building practice in England and America. The Lower Hutt City Council replied that they raised no objection to this proposal, provided it was limited to these five houses. In Mr. Andrews’ criticism to an 8-foof ceiling and his appeal to the Standards Institute on this matter, he is as usual in modern building practice woefully ignorant of the true position, and apparently ignorant also ot the requirements of his own city s building by-laws, which allow for a minimum ceiling height of 8 feet. Again this standard falls into line with the best English and American by-laws and standarThere can be no possible question of health and hygiene-being affected by this. These two most vitally important factors are controlled by the size of the windows and the frequency with which the rooms are ventilated. Indeed, tne rooms provided in these experimental houses give a far greater cubic content of air, with great deal larger windows and ventilating parts than asked for in any Health Department regulation Or bylaws in New Zealand. One of the reasons of the success of the Housing Department’s homes has been variety in appearance. These experimental houses will in appearance meet the most exacting aesthetic standards and the department is confident that when they are finished the public of New Zealand will. proclaim them as bettering the already high standard of house, both in appearance, planning, equipment and comfort. It is apparent that both Mr. Andrews and your publication, who have deliberately attempted to misrepresent the position and discredit the Housing Department, are opposed to. all improvement. As it was done by their fathers, so it is sufficient for to-day. “The Dominion, which today describes the departments work as reactionary, and Mr. Andrews describes as “sub-standard,” have in the past attacked the department of building houses too well and of too high a standard because the country was alleged not to be able to afford this. It is most unfortunate that the department m its endeavours to improve the already very high standard of national housing that it is providing in New Zealand, indeed, the highest in the world, cannot obtain co-operation from responsible citizens and newspapers in its endeavours to still lurther improve these standards, because, it is only by the wholehearted co-operation of all interested parties that the best can be obtained. , . . As far as the reference to my being “sold the idea,” of disregarding the HuG City building by-laws is concerned, 1 would point out that there is no authority in New Zealand which is more careful of maintaining and improving the standards that affect the health and Wfare of the people of New Zealand than mj department, as was confirmed by the negligible effect of the recent earthquakes on the State houses in Masterton. Specific reference is also made to a 6000-house scheme—on whose authont} Ido not know—the inference being that these houses when erected will not be built according to Housing Department standards. Actually the post-war programme of the department envisages the erection of 10,000 houses in the first year after the war, all to be built according to existing or improved standards. Ihe Hutt Valley will share in the general building scheme but will not monopolize it. Rather than resenting expansion fostered bv my department, Mr. Andrews and “The dominion” should welcome it. I am T. ARMSTRONG. Parliament Buildings, Wellington.

October 14. [The Ministerial reply to the Lower Hutt City Council’s protest, and -the Dominion’s” article, does not answer the point at issue, namely, the impropne.y of the State Housing Department s action in nroceeding without the approval of me local governing authority to override or ignore the local by-lavvs. It is incumbent upon all private Persons or interests to obtain such aPP™™] before building is commenced, yet the department proposes to act as it has done before as a law unto itself in the “attei. The Lower Hutt City Council, instead of being in a position to exercise proper authority under its own by-laws, is being obliged to appeal to the Municipal As.ociatfon, the Standards Institute and the Town Planning Board in order to obtain a hearing for such objections as it has to certain features of the pitas prepared bv the Housing Department. The tact that such a course should be necessary shows that the council s authority m the matter has gone unrecognized by the de partment. This is test vvliich we supportetd, and the Min s ter’s ill-mannered reply does not invalidate that protest.]