The Daily News. THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1916. THE BOROUGH BY-LAWS.

Taranaki Daily News, 17 August 1916, Page 4

The Daily News. THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 1916. THE BOROUGH BY-LAWS.

With the lesson of the recent disastrous fire in New Plymouth—that brick or concrete can alone resist and circumscribe fire—fresh in the public mind, one would have thought that never again would there be even a request for a departure from the bye-laws governing building in the "brick area" of the town, yet we have now a determined effort being made to render the bye-laws a dead letter in one essential particular. If councillors realise their duty they will stand by the bye-laws. For ona thing, if they grant the request that has been put forth with so much plausibility and speciousness they will open the way to further requests for a suspension of the bye-laws. For another, they will be doing an injustice to others who have been put to a good deal of expense in adhering to the letter of the bye-laws. The departure is asked in respect of a place of public assemblage. Public safety must be the paramount consideration, and for that very reason the framers of the byelaws made special provision, as expressed in these words:—"Every theatre, opera house, or other building intended to lie used gon»rally for theatrical or operatic purposes .... to s eat more than 500 persons .... shall be erected of brick, stone or concrete." The provision is clear and emphatic, and the wonder is that after the recent almost instantaneous destruction of a wooden theatre anyone would have the toaragfe to approach the Council with a view to wood being retained in a building meant for public entertain tuei* t» a way ot

course, the interested parties cannot lie blamed for endeavoring to save money by overriding special bye-laws, but the public will most certainly blame the Council should it give even the slightest 'iiicouragcinont to such a proposal, especially after enforcing the owners the other theatre in course of construction to comply in the smallest detail—and rightly so—with the requirements of the bye-laws. Were tile Council to suspend the bye-laws governing building in the inner area, a precedent would be set "uat must subsequently operate disastrously, for other requests could .not lie consistently refused, which would mean t'.iat there never would be a fire-proof inner area, from which New Plymouth is obviously suffering at the present time. We agree that some of the other bye-laws are meant more for large cities than provincial towns and discretionary power should be exercised in their enforcement, but there should ba no relaxation whatever, in respect to the provisions applying to the inner part of the town or where the public safety is at stake, as it is in the case under review, and tlie Council in agreeing to any such departure would be guilty of a grave dereliction of duty and responsibility.