( 31 )
The CHAIRMAN-In your opinion there would be no harm in making it applicable to all houses ?--Take the case of property we have of the value of $10 or $12 a square foot, and 50 per cent. would be taken off that for the making of the yard.
Hon. C. P. CHATER-And the room would be of no use at all?-No, what would be the use of it?
The man's property would be reduced to a minimun ?-Yes. Take the particular case I have in my mind. It would simply mean that the property would be worth nothing and it would be a case of resumption.
The CHAIRMAN-Are there many properties of that kind in Hongkong?-A great
number.
Can you tell us to what extent ?-What do you mean, to what extent?-
How many properties are there of that kind in Hongkong?
Hon T. H. WHITEHEAD.-Hundreds?
WITNESS-Oh no, not hundreds. I should say I know about twenty lots.
The CHAIRMAN-And the acreage, how much?—I do not know.
Roughly speaking, two acres?—No, I do not think there would be two acres.
You could perhaps give us the return?—I have not the information. The Sanitary Board could get it for you. I should think the information is already in the depart- ment. I will willingly give them a note of all the property I know of.
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD-To go back to this question of open air space. If a certain open air space is not made in new buildings erected on such land as that created by the burning of a house and if the air space is not made and maintained, will the property be a sanitary property?—I call these houses that I am referring to in this street sanitary and habitable houses and they are only 24 feet deep and they have no backyards. Hon. C. P. CHATER-If a shaft was made such as you proposed a little while ago by doing away with half the kitchen it would improve the property and make it far more sanitary?--Of course it would.
Mr. EDE-Your main objections to these proposals to have open spaces at the back are, I take it, Mr. DANBY, based upon the calculation of the valuation of the pro- perty and the depreciation of the value of the property. Do you, setting apart that question of the value of the property, think it is a desirable thing to do, quite apart from what it is going to cost and whom the cost is going to fall upon ?--That is a matter of sentiment,
Is it necessary to do it from a sanitary point of view ?—It is desirable.
Is it necessary?—I do not think it is necessary. I still hold that these areas would answer all requirements without opening out the passages. I should like to make one observation in reference to the narrow lanes 18 inches wide and 20 inches wide. Most of these lanes have not been built purposely that way. They have been left that way owing to disputes between adjoining owners. In this Colony there is no Ordinance referring to party walls. The London Building Act is an Ordinance by which an adjoining building owner, if he wants to put up a new building, can, by giving the adjoining owners notice, encroach on the adjoining owners' property by his underground projecting footings. Now there is nothing of that kind in Hongkong. I have a dozen party wall disputes on. There is a little alley way left about 18 inches wide; it is not a passage, but only a receptacle for filth and all kinds of rubbish. I was going to suggest that if the Government should decide to go in for a new Ordinance they should introduce this; it is Part No. 8 of the London Building Act, 1894. There is a case on now where we had to draw up a special agreement because we wanted to encroach on a neighbour's. property with a projecting footing. If the owners do not agree one says "I will not