NEW SCHOOL BUILDINGS.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 November 1919, Page 3

NEW SCHOOL BUILDINGS.

DELAY OP NECESSARY WORKS. A QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY. When the report of the architect was before the Tarunaki Education Board at yesterday's meeting, the question was raised as to whether some part of it, which concerned conversations between •the architect and the Department's inspecting officer, should be regarded as confidential. The architect, who had marked that portion of his report confidential, pointed out that he had personally no feeling in the matter, and merely put the confidential mark to suggest to the Borough that they should consider whether or not the matters referred to should be made public. While the officer did not have the last say in regard •to grants for new buildings, etc., it usually happened that the recommendations he made were adopted by the department. Mr. Trimble protested at the report being made confidential, and the Board sheltering the department's officers, who were opposed to grafits applied for by the Board. The public looked to the Board to get new works carried out, and if they were blocked or delayed, the public had a right to kuow who was responsible. Mr. Smith said he did not see that the Board had any reason for protecting the department's officers. There seemed to be no end of trouble in getting grants authorised, simply because departmental officers did not agree as to their necessity. It had been stated that the ollicer had made a thorough examination of the Cqurtenay Street school, but on being pressed for an answer he had to admit that he had not been under the building, and he .(the speaker) contended that such an examination could not be called thorough. Mr. Smith further pointed out that when the application for a grant for a new school at Courtenay Street was made the attendance was 200, and the increase in scholars during the year had reduced the average floor space per child to about Bft., which was les3 than that stipulated by the department, and yet there was no need for a new building. Now that the Government had money available for rebuilding schools and residences, he did not sec rwhy there 9hould be a continuance oi the "marking time" policy.

Mr. White' said that if the conversation between the architect and the department's officer was confidential, the Board must respect that confidence. It was quite time, however, that the public, and not departmental officers, should dictate the policy in regard to requirements of school buildings and residences. The conditions at Courtenay Street and West End had been a scandal for years. If there was no other means of getting what was so urgently needed, steps should be taken to remove the obstructions that were in the way. Mr. Masters (chairman) suggested that the difficulty could be got over by asking the department for an official reply to the Board's applications for grants for the works referred to, and then if it was unfavorable the Board could take such action as it thought fit. Mr. Trimble then referred to the matter of the Ngaere residence, and said he was not prepared to accept the word of the department's ollicer as against that of the Board's architect as to the condition or state of the buildings. Mr. Grayling said it was absurd for the officer to put himself up as an expert on buildings as against the Board's architect.

Mr. Moore assured the Board that the officer had made no reservations, as to the matters referred to being treated as confidential, nor had he himself. He was prepared to leave the matter entirely to the Board. In a further reference to the need for a new building at Courtenay Street, he said the department would not consider a now building necessary until the present building was rotten, and that might not be for years. The grounds upon which lie urged the necessity for a new school were that the building was too small and obsolete, and unsuitable for properly educating children on modern lines.

Mr. Trimble said the Board was being blamed for not getting the works done, and all the while it was the department that was to blame for blocking the way, and that should be pointed out to the public.

Ultimately it was decided to treat the portion of the report as confidential, but to make separate application to the Department for a reply in respect to grants for each of the works referred to.