PUBLIC SAFETY.

Taranaki Daily News, 30 May 1922, Page 5

PUBLIC SAFETY.

QUESTION OF FIRE ESCAPES? t ; jug t THE WHITELEY CHURCH. The report of the Fire Board superintendent on the question of fire escapes ' at the Whiteley Church was the subject of some discussion at the meeting of the New Plymouth Borough Council last night. A letter received from the secretary of the New Plymouth Fire Board (Mr. L. M. Monteath) stated the superintendent had reported that the plan of fire exits at the church as submitted by the ‘architect did not meet with his approval, and it would be necessary for the board to ask for another plan on the lines indicated to the architect. On behalf of the Whiteley Memorial Trust the hon. secretary (Mr. V. Griffiths) wrote under date May 18: a meeting of the church trustees held last evening I was directed to write recording a protest against the unfair comments made at the last meeting of the council with reference to the non -completion of the above.” The letter continued by stating that reference to the council’s files would show that a plan of the proposed new stairs was forwarded on March 24 1921, asking that the plan be submitted to the Fire Board for approval, also applying for a permit to enable the work to be proceeded with. “Your reply to the letter above referred to (Mr. Griffiths continued) only reached me this morning, while this protest was being written, therefore it is evident the criticism was not justified. The trustees are as anxious as anyone to have the work, completed.” The letter intimated that the trustees would be pleased to co®npiy?_ with any reasonable request for theamending of the plan. Or. J. Brown said the trustees were’ charged with using the upstairs portion of the building without a license, thus% breaking the by-laws, and his contention*was that had anybody else but thechurch dpne so they would have teenK prosecuted. He was not saying unfair, but thought that the building/ ought not to be used if it did not comply: with the by-laws. If the council’s file was produced it would show this hade been going oh for years and matters-, were no further ahead now. He did not know who was to blame — probably it was the Fire Board. The Mayor (Mr. F. E. Wihon) said ho did not think the Whiteley Church trustees were to blame this year. He pointed out that the plans,, with a request for a permit, were sent in 1 last year, and the matter was allowed to rest qntii May of this year. It certainly did not seem businesslike. _ Answering Cr. Blackhall, the Maym* said he did not know if the original plans of the building had been passed by the council. The Fire Board Act? would not have been in operation, then. Cr. Brown asked that the file be pro-* duced. The Mayor: It has been reported <ni for years.

Councillor Griffiths said there were complaints years ago and the faults were rectified, the church authorities then being given a clean permit. Then the staircase question had come up. Personally he was opposed to the alteration of the staircase. At the most the gallery would hold only 15<9 people and there were two staircases to take them down. There were no naked lights in the building and scarcely any risk of To him the thing seemed absolutely ridieu-* tons. The church authorities made the proposal in the belief that they had a solution of a very difficult problem and aftthorised the work to proceed, but they, could not go on without a permit. <UtatH this week they had had no reply to their request for a permit. , The general manager said he received the plans from the inspector on July last ami forwarded them to the Ffre Board the same day. In September he called the attention of the inspector to the fact that the plans had not been returned. An explanation by Inspector Day followed. He said he saw the snperinten-i deirt with regard to the plans, and ha understood the matter was be arranged between him and the architect} (Mr. Griffiths). The council decided to defer furtneifr action until after the next meeting offi the Fire Board.