382
whether some form of cubicle is not practically | necessary to the domestic life of the poorer Chinese, it is certain that their abolition would entail a loss of rent. The prohibition therefore, in the case of land already leased from the Crown, should only be applied subject to com- pensation.
Section 170 of the Bill provides in effect, as de. cided in the recent case of Knight v. Moses (6th July, 1902), that the owner of a row of houses, erected in 1900 according to the then existing law, of however little depth, facing pu one side a private street twenty feet wide and on the other (the kitchen) side a public street thirty feet wide, must, for the purpose of light and ventilation, pull down part of each house so as to make a further open space; although if the streets had happened to be reversed, and the one on the kitchen si te had been private, it would, even if only six fe t wide, have sufficed. It was also decided, despite the provision that "a domestic building with two main frontages in different streets shall be regarded as two domestic buildings if the depth exceeds fifty feet," that such a building of less than this depth cannot have two frontages, but that one of them must be called the rear. Apart from the patent absurdity of such provisions, your petitioners submit that an owner can only under these circumstances be fairly required to alter his property subject to compensation. It may be observed that the section renders illegal the Hongkong Club, the Hongkong Hotel, the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, the Chartered Bank, and other of the principal edifices in the colony
Section 171 of the Bill proposes double the space between a new building and the hill side. In the case of re-erecting an existing building, or of erecting any building on land already leased from the Crown, this condition should only be imposed subject to compensation. Section 175 of the Bill provides, in the case of new buildings on land already leased from the Crown, that part of the land shall be left vacant for a back lane. It may be observed that, where lots do not align in the rear, this space would be discontinuous and not available as a lane. In any case the requirement should be subject to compensation.
Section 177 of the Bill contains further new and drastic provisions as to open spaces on Apart land already leased from the Crown. from the question whether this section, is not impracticable as rendering many valuable sites useless for building purposes, and the quest on whether it does not defeat its own object seeing that an owner will not voluntarily rebuild at such a sacrifice as it entails, and the question whether the provision that the required open space may be shared between adjoining owners is not illusory because the owner who happens to be first obliged to rebuild must provide the whole, it is obvious that, if the section is retain. ed, it should be made subject to compensation. Section 179 of the Bill imposes another new condition on land already leased from the Crown, namely that in future all private streets must be laid out under the Government's direction. This should be subject to compen. sation whenever the Government vetoes a scheme now legal, or enforces a scheme of its own which causes loss to the owner.
Section 180 of the Bill proposes new restric- tions upon the width of such private streets ; here again compensation should be paid.
Section 182 of the Bill forbids the re-erection of any existing building over a private street. This can only be equitably done subject to compensation on which basis your petitioners are, as regards the undesirability of houses erected across the entrances to private streets, in such full accord with the Government that they would advocate the compulsory removal of such houses forthwith.
Section 202 of the Bill, Your petitioners also agree with the Government as to the expediency of enabling the building authority to require au owner to shore and protect any building which in the said authority's opinion is dangerous: but your petitioners submit that the owner should have a right of appeal, and if it appears that the building is not in fact dangerous he should receive compensation.
In nearly all these instances the Govern ment's desire is manifest to remedy the parsimony of its own past policy regarding streets and open spaces, which policy indeed
|
THE HONGKONG WEEKLĂ PRESS AND
;
|
is now being repeated in the newly developed districts on the mainland, by virtually confiscat ing from private owners for the purposes afore. said land which ought, in the first instance, to have been retained therefor by the Government. (d) The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.
as
Section 38 empowers the local authority to owner to remove an obstructive compel an building subject to compensation, and in section 21 the compensation is described
"fair market value "of the property. Che
Your petitioners beg also ti refor Your same witter to the Excellency upon the following Priva'o Municipal Acts :-
(a) The Birmingham Corporation Consolida- tiou Act, 1881, and the Building Byelaws, 1887, made thereunder.
This Act, in section 31. &c, fully recognises the principle contended for, aud is the more valuable as a precedent by reason of the pro- minent part takea by the present Secretary of State for the Colonies in the passing of the Act, and in the improvement scheme which occasioned it.
Section 39 further provides that no new building shall be erected within a certain dis- tance of the centre of auy carriage road subject to compensation where an existing building has, upon re-erection, to be consequently set back.
(b.) The Londou Building Act, 1894. Section 15 provides for widening streets, subject to compensation,
Section 23 provides for setting back any pro- jecting building which has been taken down or destroyed, subject to compensation.
The Bill in sectio 1 181 similarly provides for. setting back, but without compensation.
Section 93 empowers an owner improving his building to underpin the adjoining owner's premises, subject to compensation to the ad- joining owner.
This compensation would of course be pay able by the owner and not by the Government, and the framers of the Bill have in section 239 been curiously tender to preserve the provision, alone of all regarding compensation except that payable in respect of the resumption of land by the Crown under Part V.
(c.) The Hasgow Building Act, 1900. Section 60 provides that the height of not exceed one and new buildings shall a half times the width of the street where they stand, but the right of the owner of an existing building to re-erect it to its actual height is reserved.
Contrast section 185 of the Bill wherein, if the Legislative Council doclines for any reason to insert the same general reservation, the owner's right should be recognised by com- pensation.
(d) The Liverpool Improvement Act, 1882, and the Building Regulations, 1991, made thereunder.
Regulations 31 and 32 provide that when a projecting building is taken down or destroyed it shall be set back to the building line, subject to "full compensation" to the owner.
Regulation 33 empowers the local authority to adjust the building line, subject to a like compensation.
Regulation 34 empowers the local authority, when any building has been taken down or destroyed, to alter the building line, subject to a like compensation.
And so general and municipal Acts might be cited indefinitely, and in all it would appear that the English Legislature is ever jealous to fully recompense any individual whose interests have suffered for the common good.
7, Your petitioners suggest that, when the Government and the owner disagree as to the amount of compensation, the system of arbitra. tion provided under The Public Health Act, 1875, and which has been found to work so satisfactorily that it has been generally adopted in Municipal Acts since that date, be resorted to; and that, unless the Government and the owner concur upon a single arbitrator, they shall each appoint one, and the two arbitrators shall in case of need choose an umpire to finally decide whereon they differ.
8. Another important matter of princip'e is the question of the expediency of giving to one officer of the Sanitary Board--the proposed Sanitary Commissioner---such large and arbi- trary powers as the Bill contains. With an ideal man, whose successors at least could not
|
|
[November 17, 1902.
be assured, a despotic system may be the most convenient, as otherwise it is certainly the worst. Your petitioners urge that all important dis- cretionary matte s whereof time would permit a reference to the Board may be so referred, and that the functions of the Commissioner, if such as officer is to be appointed, may be exercised under the control of the Board," and restricted to points of detail and routine. Further, as it is intended that the Commissioner shall be a medical mau, your petitioners submit that he should at any rate be relieved front all such work as specially falls within the provinca of the civil engineer and architect.
9. As to the proposed abolition of verandabs over public streets, your petitioners most re- spectfully submit that the proper use of the Government's right, which is the public right, woull be to encourage the erection of such veranlahs wherever the width of the street suffices. Verandahs not only protect passengers from sun and rain, an invaluable boon in a tropical climate, but they enable windows to be kept open in the bad weather which often provals during our hot season, they render practicable larger windows than could otherwise be used, and they provide a place where women and children may obtain the benefit of the open air with privacy. Your petitioners suggest that in streets from thirty to fifty feet wide verandahs should be allowed, and in streets of greater width they should be compulsory. It may be assumed that few owners would sacrifice their own land to build verandahs, and snch verandabs even if built would not protect the footpath.
in 10. As to the definition of "external air section 149 (9) of the Bill, your petitioners beg to point out that it would render illegal the buildings mentioned in the sixth paragraph of this petition as being also illegal under section 170 of the Bill, the new Queen's and Prince's Buildings, most of the principal European residences and offices in the colony, and the improved Chinese dwellings designed by the Director of Public Works and approved by Messrs. Chadwick and Simpson, who lately visited Hongkong as sanitary experts. Your petitioners suggest that the said definition be altered so as to include, as they submit it reasonably should, any open space whereon
the owner cannot build,
11. As to the large sum 10quired for the pur- pose of compensation, your petitioners think that this should be raised, as it is in similar cases in England, by a loan repayable in a term of years. In view of the present uncertain state of the Bill your petitioners hesitate to name the amonut or conditions of such a loan, and they suggest that a committee of financiers be ap- pointed to consider the matter. Many owners would doubtless be prepared to carry out the requisite work at their own cost, receiving part of their compensation in the form of reduced Crown rents, prolonged leases, and the like Your petitioners submit that a definite and com- prehensive scheme of the improvements contem- plated by the Bill should be formulated, that the work should be spread over a period of years, and that a beginning should be made as soon as possible with some of the oldest properties in the central districts.
12. Messrs. Danby, Denison, Ram and Gibbs, Leigh and Orange, and Palmer and Turner, civil engineers and architects of this colony, have, at the request of your petitioners, prepared a fully technical report upon the Bill. This Its details are unnecessary report is enclosed. to repeat. It reveals in the Bill the hand of the of one novice in building matters, and iuappreciative of the rights of property. It shows that some provisions, taken bodily from drawn, It shows that others have been so the English statute book, are practical and well altered in the taking as to be doprived of their And it exemplifies by many the circumstance that further instances original value. throughout the Bill (with the single exception aforesaid) all the careful provisions of the English Acts for compensation wherever private rights are infringed have been scrupulously
omitted.
Your petitioners therefore pray that Your Excellency may be pleased to direct that the Bill in its present form be withdragn from the and that it be so amended as to comprise the further consideration of the Legislative Council, principles aforesaid and especially to provide