148
Tambang ndi na Lâm, në Lanë Liựt nát sa aj płaskommune at 97a26
SELVİS TEŻ Saltiyojnyi
zvonkamer (20)
OP I.
Fondo oure
Hon. Colonial Secretary,
2
REC
C
32613
328
REG 11 JULY 1. with regard to Mesars, Denison, Ram & Gibba" letter
of 12.4.16, addressed to you, I offer the following comments.
2. Para.3- Hesera, Denison, Ram & Gibbs state that the
buildings "are only 3 storeys high”. Their statement is
correct, but, when the P. H. & B. O, was passed, the
Architects in the Oolony, including Messrs. Denison, Ram
and Gibbs, represented that the heights of storeys specified
in the case of dostic buildings, naasly, 12 fest for the
ground storey and 11 feet for all upper storeys, were excessive
and requested that a clear height of 9 fast only should be
specified in all cases. Whilst the heigate of 12 and 11 fest
were retained for ordinary living rooms, provision was made
in the Ordinance for servants' quarters, kitchens, bathrooms,
&o., to be only 9'0" in height. In the case of Host of the
plans submitted under the Ordinance, a height of 9'0" is
adhered to for such apartm.nħa, but, in the ouse which has
given rise to this correspondence, (I-L-2070), Messrs. Denison,
Ram & Gibbs showed the kitchens and bathrooms to have a height
of 15'07 or the ground storey and 12'3" and 11'6" respectively
on the two upper storeys. Thei· reference to the number of
atoraya, without alluding to the height of such storeys,
is therefore misleading.
3. Para.5- As expressed by Mosers. Denison, Ram & Gibbs,
it would appear as if the accommodation of the building ware
affected by my stipulation. Un the contrary, I have only
requested the Arohiteuta to refrain in this particular case
from applying heights far in excess of those which they and
their colleagues represented to be sufficient win the existing
Ordinance was under consideration. Tas accommodation of the
building, which will still contain 3 storeys, is in no way
affeotud and I cannot see in what respect any "hardship" arises
Page 330Page 331