( 25 )
For what reasons would they object ?--Because it would do away with the privacy
of the cubicles.
It would be impossible to see over them unless you got a stool to stand upon. I tried it the other day. I had a six-foot board put up and by standing ou the railing of a chair or a stool I could see right over. By this means they could see right into the adjoining room. The law at present is that no cubicle shall be less than 8 feet in height, and, again, there must be a clear open space of 4 feet above the partition, and I certainly think that those portions of the Ordinances referring to them should remain as they are. But in addition to that, I would suggest that no cubicles be permitted to be constructed in any rooms with a less clear height than 12 feet. Usually a room is 12 feet high, and I have been looking at the plans of a large number of Chinese houses I have constructed since I started in private practice and I do not know one room that is less than 12 feet in height.
Are you aware that Ordinance 15 of 1894 permits, in houses erected subsequent to that Act, cubicles only in rooms which have a window area kept clear and unob- structed of not less than one tenth of the floor area and opening directly into the external air? Do you think that regulation should apply to every existing domestic dwelling in which cubicles are erected ?--Yes, with reference to all buildings, whether cubicles are in them or not.
Should it apply to existing domestic dwellings ?—Yes, I would apply it to every existing building. But in connection with cubicles, & feet high and an open space of 4 feet, I was going to suggest either that the window be placed as near the ceiling as possible, or that there should be ventilators 18 inches wide and 12 inches high. These ventilators would cause a thorough ventilation over the top of the cubicles where all the hot air accumulates, and there would be a draught from one end of the room to the other, and such a draught would not be noticed by the occupants of the cubicles. If it was a draught which they felt, the tendency would be to close up the ventilators.
air
Mr. EDE-By ventilators you mean an opening into the open air?- Into the open -as near the joist as possible. If there are two ventilators there is a current right through.
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD-Would you make that compulsory in the present buildings ?—Yes; the expense would be very little.
Do you think that cubicles should be limited to and only permitted upon the top floors of houses fronting on streets less than 15 feet wide ?--I do not agree with that. I should have cubicles on the two uppermost floors-the top floor and the one immediately below it. If cubicles are allowed on the top floors there is nothing to prevent them from being well lighted by having skylights in the roofs. There is a great number of these houses with skylights on what you may call the lee side of the roof. On the north side of the Praya many houses have skylights on the south side of their roofs.
The CHAIRMAN-Do you think that, in cases just referred to, where houses front on a street less than 15 feet wide, if cubicles are erected on the top floor and on the floor immediately underneath, the floor underneath will have sufficient light?-I was referring more particularly to top floors of houses in streets less than 15 feet wide, and there you can light from the roof.
This Commission has been informed that it would be advisable that cubicles should not be permitted except on the top floors of houses fronting on streets less than 15 feet wide. I understood you to tell Mr. WHITEHEAD that they might be allowed on the top and the underneath floors; you have explained about the top floor, but how about the floor underneath that? Do you think cubicles should be allowed on the two floors?—In reference to the cubicles on the floor immediately below the top floor in narrow streets, if you do away with the cubicles on that floor then you have the question of compensation.