2
-
SUNDAY, AUGUST 18, 1974
TURNING TO THE SECOND BUILDING CITED, CARAVAN COURT IN CAINE ROAD, THE SPOKESMAN SAID:
+THE ALLEGATION IN THIS CASE THAT IT WAS THE ACTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN, REQUIRING DEMOLITION OF THREE PRE-WAR BUILDINGS NEXT DOOR THAT CAUSED A RETAINING WALL TO BECOME UNSAFE AND IN NEED OF RECONSTRUCTION IS QUITE
INCORRECT.
+THE RAPID DETERIORATION OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE THREE PRE-WAR BUILDINGS, WHICH RESULTED IN THE ORDERS FOR THEIR DEMOLITION, TOOK PLACE AT THE SAME TIME AS PILING OPERATIONS FOR CARAVAN COURT. THE SUBSEQUENT DEMOLITION OF THESE BUILDINGS REVEALED THAT. THE RETAINING WALL BETWEEN CARAVAN COURT AND THE DEMOLITION SITE HAD ALSO BECOME UNSAFE. ACCORDINGLY A MOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE DEVELOPER OF CARAVAN COURT IN NOVEMBER 1972 REQUIRING THE DEMOLITION OF THIS RETAINING WALL AND ITS REINSTATEMENT. THIS WORK WAS NOT COMPLETED UNTIL JULY THIS YEAR, CI.E. 20 MONTHS LATER), WHEN AN OCCUPATION PERMIT WAS ISSUED.+
THE THIRD BUILDING MENTIONED WAS HONG KONG GARDEN IN SEYMOUR ROAD. IN THIS CASE THE SPOKESMAN COMMENTED: +UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE CAME TO LIGHT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BUILDING THAT STABILITY PROBLEMS COULD ARISE ON THIS HILLSIDE SITE AND THAT THESE PROBLEMS WOULD HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH BEFORE THE QUESTION OF GIVING AN OCCUPATION PERMIT COULD BE CONSIDERED CIN FACT, THE AUTHORISED ARCHITECT HAS NOT EVEN APPLIED FOR SUCH A PERMIT).
+THE BUILDINGS ORDINANCE OFFICE REQUIRED THE DEVELOPER TO INVESTIGATE THESE PROBLEMS, AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CONSULTANTS BROUGHT IN BY THE DEVELOPER HIMSELF FULLY CONFIRMED THE VIEW THAT THE PROBLEMS WERE SERIOUS.
+THUS BOTH THE GOVERNMENT'S EXPERTS AND THE PROFESSIONAL ADVISERS ENGAGED BY THE DEVELOPERS ARE IN FULL ACREEMENT THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM AND CLEARLY THE QUESTION OF OCCUPATION MUST AWAIT THE COMPLETION OF THE WORKS NOW IN HAND WHICH SHOULD CORRECT THE SITUATION.
+THE DEVELOPER'S ARCHITECT AND ENGINEERS ARE ACTIVELY TAKING STEPS TO DEAL WITH, AND ELIMINATE, ANY POTENTIAL HAZARDS. THE FACT THAT THESE PROBLEMS ONLY CANE FULLY TO LIGHT DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION IS QUITE IRRELEVANT TO THE NEED TO FACE UP TO THEM AND SOLVE THEM. THE LAW REQUIRES THEIR SOLUTION, AND FOR THE BUILDING AUTHORITY TO IGNORE THEM WOULD AMOUNT NOT ONLY TO A DISREGARD OF THE LAW BUT ALSO AN ABROGATION OF THE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY RESTING ON THE STAFF OF THE BUILDINGS ORDINANCE OFFICE, WHICH IS THE PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY.
B