( 28 )
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD-As regards private lanes are you of opinion that owners thereof should possess the power to put up erections which block the entrance to 'and exit from the lanes with the exception of space sufficient for one person to pass through? No, I do not think they ought to have that power.
The CHAIRMAN-Do you think it would be a good thing if the Government took over all private lanes that have been paved and channelled?-In connection with the stopping of these thoroughfares I should like to say that a private lane more than 15 feet-for instance, I would allow the same as was permitted under the Birmingham Building Act, under which an owner can stop up the entrance of a lane or street for, I think, one-third of its width; he must keep two-thirds clear at each end.
Then you think that under certain circumstances the owner of a private lane might
be allowed to obstruct it to a certain extent ?—Yes.
To what extent ?--In a 12-yard street in Birmingham-I think it is Birmingham -under the bye-laws it can be obstructed to the width of four yards.
Mr. EDE-I do not follow you. Are you taking a street 15 feet wide ?-There is a street 12 yards wide. This (explaining by pencil markings) is a private street, this is a public street. The owners of that private street can obstruct it this way, leaving a passage way of 8 yards-two thirds.
The CHAIRMAN-Then you recommend that the same thing should be allowed in Hongkong?-I think so.
Mr. EDE-Is the obstruction at the entrance or right along ?-At the entrance.
The CHAIRMAN-In the case of private lanes, do you think it would be a good thing for the Government to take them over ?—No.
Do you think it would be a good thing if the owners were compelled by law to keep them in a sanitary condition ?-I do think they ought to be compelled to pave, channel them and keep them clean.
But not to be taken over by the Government ?--No. If they were taken over by the Government it would lead to endless complications.. Assuming there was an owner of property, say of a street from 70 feet to a 100 feet wide, through the centre of which there was a private lane, which the Government took over as a Public Street, after which he (the owner) wanted to take down and rebuild his pro- perty, laying it out, in a better and more profitable manner, but in such a way, however, as not to require what was formerly his "private lane." Owing to this lane now being however Government ground (i.e., a Public Street) he would be seriously handicapped, this street not now being his property. He would be entirely dependant on the good nature of the Government as to whether he could lay out his property in the manner he would like to do. In any case, it would put him to very great expense and incon- venience to get this street "located" in another position. During the last few years and even at the present time many large properties have been and are being pulled down and rebuilt in quite a different manner to what they were formerly, old private lanes being obliterated altogether and good streets made in their places, but in different localities. I would certainly compel all owners to pave, channel, and keep clean all private lanes or courtyards.
You would compel them to keep the streets in a sanitary condition ?—Yes.
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD-The law now in force requires that new backyards shall be kept free and unobstructed except by bridges not more than 3 feet 6 inches in width, one for each floor and placed vertically one above the other. Are
Are you of opinion that this law should be made retrospective ?--I do in the case of property already having backyards.