$
( 13 )
The CHAIRMAN-Do you think that the sanitary condition of the houses will be much improved by the suggestions you have just made ?-Undoubtedly I do. The houses would be much lighter and cleaner.
Dr. CLARK-Then referring to the question which has been raised in regard to a house which was burnt down and re-erected. Section 66 of Ordinance 24 of 1887-the Public Health Ordinance-says: "Every person who shall erect a domestic building upon land obtained from the Crown after the passing of this Ordinance shall provide along the entire back of such building, if one storied, a clear space forming a backyard of at least 10 feet in width, and if such building be of two or more stories, he shall cause the width of such backyard to be at least 15 feet." That means that we still have no power to prevent the erection of back to back houses except upon land purchased from the Crown after the passing of Ordinance 24 of 1887, which practically means that the whole of the City outside of Taipingshan can be re-erected with back to back houses, and that should in my opinion be prevented at once. I recommend that section 66 of the Public Health Ordinance, 24 of 1887, shall apply to all new buildings erected in future. The only thing is I think the provisions of that section may be a little too severe and I would suggest that houses not exceeding 25 feet in height, as measured from the level of the street to the underside of the eaves of such buildings-that is the usual way of measuring, I believe,→→should have open spaces at the rear extending along the entire back of such buildings and measuring at least 10 feet from every part of the back wall of such buildings; houses exceeding 25 feet in height to have such open spaces measuring at least 15 feet from every part of the back wall of such buildings. If we have a house which is 25 feet in height we must have a backyard of 10 feet; if we have a house more than 25 feet in height we must have a backyard of 15 feet; of course that backyard may be common to two houses. That section specially requires 10 feet in a one-storied building and 15 feet in a two-storied building which may be only 25 feet in height, as most of them are, but it is more drastic than I think is necessary. For that reason I think a clause was included in the schedule of the Praya Reclamation Ordinance No. 16 of 1889 in order that this stipulation should not be carried out to its full extent.
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD-What limitation was made in the Reclamation scheme? -It was not exactly the same as my suggestion--for it provided that there should be 10 feet backyards for buildings of a height of 50 feet or less.
10 feet for 50 and 15 feet for higher buildings ?-Yes, but in a progressive ratio; thus 60 feet buildings had to have a backyard of 11 feet wide and so on. It is to be remembered that that backyard may be common to two blocks of houses.
Any other points that you wish to bring forward ?—No, that is all I have to sug gest with regard to the improvement of these houses.
Would these improvements you have suggested place the properties in a sanitary condition ?—Yes. To put it in another way I would say that these alterations will render the houses fit for human habitation. At present it is questionable whether they And if these alterations are carried out I do not consider it will be necessary to demolish any special block of houses; that is, if the whole of the suggestions are adopted.
are.
They could be adopted without resuming ?-Yes; we need not resume anything. The CHAIRMAN Do you think it would cost much to carry out the suggestion?- That seems to me to be a matter for the landlords. I do not think it is for the Govern-
ment to-
I want to know whether the cost of making the alterations in these two Districts, 5 and 6, would amount to a large sum.-It is impossible to say. It depends upon the sanitary condition of each householder's property; it depends upon what has already been done, and many other circumstances. I have dealt only with some glaring sanit-