Page
¿
•
266
The cubicles in the houses were put up by the tenants themselves. It was the case that the head of each staircase rested against a team, which went right across the house from party wall to party wall. The beam was larger and stronger than ordinary floor joists. To more the staircases the beams on the first and second floors had to be moved.
THE HONGKONG WEEKLY PRESS AND foundations of old walls in plans, as it was im- possible to show them correctly withont opening them up, which was an unreasonable thing to ex; ect.
Mr. H. P. Tooker, who is one of those already examined, said he carried out the duties of the Director of Public Works under the Building Ordinance, and had done so since i April, 1890-nearly twelve years. During that; period the work had increased enormonsly, and from the time witness took over his duties up till “June of 1900 the staff consisted of an assistant engineer and an overseer, besides himself. For a number of years Mr. Hazeland was his assistant. and he was succeeded by Mr. Xavier. Before Mr. Hazeland took over the duties of essis- tant engineer. Mr. S-mple filled that position, and witness had the whole of his time for Building Ordinance work. Mr. Hazeland followed Mr. Semple in 1892, and both he and Mr. Xavier were sometimes takeú away for other work. Mr. Pearson, who resigned in June last year, gave his whole time to the work, and after he resigned there was no one but Mr. Xavier, who in turn handed over the whole of his work to Mr. Crisp. The staff assisting witness was now reduced from an assistant engineer and an overseer to an overseer only.
Mr. Bowley-Your Worship will see that there is a beautiful sliding scale, and all the time the work was increasing enormously.
.
Witness said the work had increased by at least three times, and he had made repeated represen- tations to the head of the Department about the insufficiency of his staff. Of late witness had been able to give less time to work under the Building Ordinance because his other work had increased and the staff under him reduced. Witness said he received notice A and plans B and C dealing with the houses 32 and 34 in 'Cochrane Street) early in November. It was his duty to see, that plans were in accordance with the Building Ordinance, and then he passed them on to the Medical Officer of Health. The plans were given to Dr. Clark, who wanted the width of the street verified, and Mr. Crisp was sent to do the job. The width was found to be correct, and permit D was issued to the architect on 17th November last year. These proceedings were in connection with No. 32 and later the same procedure was followed in connection with No. 34. At no time before the accident did witness inspect the houses, nor did any other officer of the P.W.D. do so.
Mr. Bowley-Am I to take it, then, that there was no examination of any kind whatever by any officer of the Department, either before or after the approval of the plans?—There was no examination.
Excepting with the approval of the Director of Public Works, the old part of a building in which alterations are being made must comply with the new Building Ordinauce?—Yes.
And is it the fact that except with the approval of the Director of Public Works ail the walls of the lower story nnst be of red¦ brick? Yes.
And similarly no party wall cau exceed 35ft. in length without a return or cross wall?—Yes. On those three points the Director of Public Works has discretion whether he will allow the building or not?-Yes, but with reference to the last I have the instructions of the Director of l'ublic Works not to enforce it in any case, Was that direction the result of representa tions made by certain architects in this Colony ?--Yes.
With regard to the bonding of brickwork and the thickness of walis, has the Director of Public Works any discretion ?-There is a discretion as regards old buildings, but not new buildings.
And does it not come to this, that with respect to alterations and additions the Director of Public Works has discretion whether he will allow them or not?-Certainly.
Witness said he would rather not express an opinion on a point raised by Mr. Bowley as to whether the Surveyor-General, according to the Ordinance, was or was not legally bound to inspect such alterations and additions. From plans B and E he was of opinion that there were foundations to the old walls. the universal practice of architects not to show
It was
I
|
|
|
[September 28, 1901.
Most of these latter, however, were due to the typhoon in last November, witness thought.
Mr. Bowley-And knowing that fact, why did you approve these plans?The causes of the collapses should be enquired into first 'before I answer that question.
Mr. Bowley-Is it the universal practice of the Public Work Department to approve of a plan submitted by a European architect withont knowing whether the foundations are good-No, I don't think so. or bad-Yes.
Does the plan show whether the walls are of line brick or red brick No.
Does it shor whether they are properly bonded or not ?--No, it couldn't show that.
Is it not necessary, then, to make a personal inspection on all these points before exercising the discretion of approving alterations and additions to old works P-It is desirable.
Is it possible to inspect foundations without opening them up ?-No.
Is it possible to find out whether a wall is properly built without entting a hole in it-- No.
Is it not possible that an 18in. wall may look very nice on the outside and yet consist of two in. walls-built without any bonding between them?—Yes.
This plan (B) of No 32 shows that the wall is to le raised 50 feet high, from the footing to the coping ?--Yes, that is the maximum height allowed for the thickness shown.
Doesn't plan B show that the houses are built on a slope ?—Yes.
Ther the lower party wall must be of a greater height than the upper party wall?—Yes, unless the foundations of the lower party wall aro deeper.
The elevation on plan B shows the height of the front wall to be at least 50 feet-Yes.
Does it not appear, looking at plan B. that in all probability the lower party wall is higher than 50 feet -No, not at all.
Witness. from a note he had prepared, said the floor level of No. 32 was a foot above the top of the footing, so that the plan was in accurate. If the plan had been drawn correctly it would have shown that the wall was over 50 feet high, and therefore not in accordance with the Ordinance. In plan E (No 3)the party wall was shown to be 50 feet high from a line six, inches below the floor level. The footings, as a matter of fact, were 3 feet 10 inches below the floor level of No. 4, and if the wall had been built in accordance with the plan it must have been 53 feet 4 inches in height, and therefore not of the thickness required by the Ordinance.
Mr. Bowley-Well, Mr. Tooker, if you had examined the foundations before approving these plans, you wou'd have found out all these things?-No, it is never the practice of the P.W.D. to examine the foundations. That is left to the architect.
The Court here adjourned for tiffin. On resuming, Mr. Tooker again went into the witness box. He said that in houses built on a slope like those in Cochrane Street he would not expect the average depth of the foundations to be six ches below the floor level. As a rule the least depth would be more than six inches. It depended on the nature of the ground. In regard to the plans for the houses, it was, usual, when submitting plans for altera. tions and additions, to show all the existing work as well as the new work, but the pluus for Cochrane Street, B and E, did not show the existing work, and there was nothing in them to show cross walls in the houses. That was rather an important omission in the case of | such old party walls. There was nothing in the plans to show that the staircases were to be moved, and in the plan of No. 34 no staircases were shown at all, nor were any foundations shown for the new internal cross wall. The removal of the staircase would probably tend to weaken the party wall. No detailed draw. ings of the verandah of No. 34 were submitted to the P.W.D. With regard to No. 32, the plan was submitted to and approved by the Governor, but the owner did not sign the necessary agreement regarding the prospec tive verandah. That was the reason Mr. Crisp was sent in May to find out whether or not the verandah had been constructed. Witness remembered reading an article in the China Mail in August, 1899, regarding jerry-building in Hongkong,, which gave rise to considerable discussion. Before that time there were several collapses, and since then there had been more,
:
|
1
Were they not owing to defective building?
You admit you had discretion in the matter. Why did you approve these plans? We could ,have told the architects we would not approve them until they had opened up the foundations. Why didn't you do it?-We had no orders to do it.
i
You might have refused to sign these permits?-We could not tell the architect we had no time to inspect this building.
Was there anything to compel you to sign these permits?--If the plans are in accordance with the Building Ordinance we must sign
them.
You have seen the houses, Mr. Tooker. Now, is there anything to indicate that there were deviations from the plans for the alters- tious and additions ?--Yes.
What are they ---On the ground floor of No. 34 there is an arch instead of a cross wall, and opening into the kitchen there is an archway instead of a door. There is no internal cross wall as shown in the plan, nor are there any chimneys in accordance with the plan. There is a pipe flue to serve the ground floor only, and that is not in accordance with the plan.
Did
you notice any cutting in the party wall of the cookhouses ?--I did. There is a recess in the party wall between Nos. 34 and 36, in the cookhouses on the first floor. It is about It up- 2ft. 6in. square and about 9in. deep. peared to be new work.
Did you see anything on the roof?- On the roof there was a superstructure of brickwork.
It about 7ft. high and about 5ft, square. appeared to be used as a cookhouse. Alongside ·
another superstructure this cookhouse was
which had partly broken away.
What had it been used for P-I cannot say. And now as regards No. 34. What devia- tions from the plan did you notice there ?-On the ground floor was an arch instead of a cross- wall. The internal crosswall was not there at all. There were no chimneys as shown in the plan, and there was a similar superstructure to that at No. 34 on the roof, but not so high, though nearly so. The sides of this super- structure appeared to be built on the party wall between 32 and 44.
We have it that the height of the party wall was 53ft 4in. With that superstructure on the top, that would make the wall somewhere about. ft. high P-Superstructures of that nature are not considered as part of the main gall.
$
As far as you can judge, did any of these deviations you have mentioned contribute to- wards the accident?-I think they would con- tribute in a slight degree, but I don't think the chimneys or the superstructures on the roof contributed to the collapse.
His Worship-They were bound to have added to the weight.-They did not add to the weight of that portion of the wall which gave way. I think the absence of the internal cross wall would tend to weaken the building.
Mr. Bowley-I think you have already given us your opinion as to the cause of the collapse ?
-Yes, and I am still of the same opinion.
Do consider the work in the blacksmith's
you shop would tend to weaken the wall?—I think it would have a litle effect that way, but not very much.
Was the collapse caused by the additional weight placed on the party wall through the additions and alterations ?-I don't think so. The wall would have come down sooner or later. It might have stood for years ?-I doubt it. Can you tell me the number of inmates allowed by law to occupy these houses?-- Practically 55 people to each house.
Before or after the alterations ?-After the alterations.
Can you give us any idea as to how many Chinese houses have had another story added to them during the year 1900 ?-Plans were deposited during the year for raising 189 houses an extra s'ory.
His Worship-I suppose these extra stories have been added ?--The plans were approved and permits issned.