464
provision of Sect. 66 of Ord. 24 of 1887. Hence they did not adopt the suggestion of Dr. Clark which was endorsed by Mr. Cooper that Sect. 66 of the Public Health Ordinance should be amended so as to apply with some modification to all new buildings erected in future.
(7) With the evidence now before us of the type of domestic dwellings which would result from the adoption of the original recommendation of the Board, we are convinced that the Board were wrong in not asking for larger open spaces in the rear of houses to be erected in future, and we accordingly now recommend these larger open spaces in the case of future houses (not coming under the provision of Sect. 66 of the Public Health Ordinance) of, however, somewhat less dimensions than were recommended by Dr. Clark and Mr. Cooper.
(8) Being, however, strongly in favour of the introduction of back lanes, we recommend that the original scale recommended by the Board for the widths of these lanes be allowed to stand, thereby offering a large inducement to owners of property to provide lanes instead of backyards in rear of domestic dwellings.
(9) The Board have already in para. 9 of their report of the 9th of June referred to Mr. Chadwick's views on the subject of back lanes, and we would now further invite attention to paras. 156, 159 of his report in which he gives his views as to the spaces that should be provided in Victoria in the rear of domestic dwellings; and the dimensions that might be allowed in such spaces when they take the form of continuous alleys.
The paragraphs read as follows:
(156) It would seem reasonable to demand in a tropical City like Victoria, sheltered as it is during half of the year
...
Page 1