324
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 many other of the principal edifices in the colony.
Section 171 of the Bill proposes to double the space between a new building and the hillside, 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 land already leased from the crown. Apart from the question whether this section is not impracticable as rendering many valuable sites useless for building purposes, and the question 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 retained, 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 enbject to compensation whenever the Government retoes a scheme now legal, or enforces a scheme of its own which causes loss to the owner.
Section 180 of the Bill proposes new restrictions 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 remoral 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 an 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 Government's desire is manifest to remedy the parsimony of its own past policy regarding streets and open spaces, which policy indeed is now being repeated in the newly developed districts on the mainland, by virtually confiscating from private owners for the purposes aforesaid land which ought, in the first instance, to have been retained therefor by the Government.
(d). The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.
Section 38 mpowers the local authority to compel au
owner to
reinove an obstructive
building subject to compensation, and in section 21 the compensation is described as the "fair market value" of the property.
Your petitioners beg also to refer Your Excellency upon the same matter to the following Private Municipal Acts -
(a). The Birmingham Corporation Consolidation Act, 1883, and the Building Byelaws, 1887, made thereunder,
This Act, in section 31 &c, fally recognises the principle contended for, and is the more valuable as a precedent by reason of the prominent part taken 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 distance of the centre of any carriage road, subject to compensation where an existing building has, upon ra-erection,
to be consequently set back.
(b). The London Building Act, 1894.
Section 15 provides for widening streets, subject to compensation.
Section 23 provides for setting back any projecting building which has been taken down or destroyed, subject to compensation,
The Bill in section 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 adjoining owner.
This compensation would of course be payable by the owner and not by the Government, and the framers of the Bill have in section 239 bien curiously tender to preserve the provision, alone of all regarding compensation except that payable in respect of the resumption of land by the crown ander Part V.
(c). The Glasgow Building Act, 1900.
Section 60 provides that the height of new buildings shall not exceed one and 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 declines for any reason to insert the same general reservation, the owner's right should be recognised by compensation.
(d). The Liverpool Improvement Act, 1882, and the Building Regulations, 1901, 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.
多学
Regulation 36 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.
amount of come
7. Your petitioners suggest that, when the Government and the owner Arbitration as t disagree as to the amount of compensation, the system of arbitration provided under nation
332