CO537-(36-37) — Page 90

Vap

..

}

1948.

для визнат

968 or Cente

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

이

Reference:-

www.C.O. 537

16001

Q.

A.

A.

03 9.

was made, as to whether it came in within the three

weeka, between the time when the Ordinance was passed,

and when I went away on leave.

Were you not specially given a seat on the Council to bm

advise on this law, when it was in Bill form ↑

YOS.

Do you agree that no ́rdinanas 23 of 1903, in as far booz as it affects the cubicle question, and the external

air question, was absolutely necessary, because the

Government had been mialed as to the effect of the

original Ordinance on the same questions ▼

No, I cant admit that.

(Question repeated).

16003

04

A.

No.

Under Ordinancs 23 of 1903, only one oubiela was allowed to be erected on each of the upper floors, and

16004

none on the ground floor. Was it intended to make each

floor only tenantable for one family ?

361

RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

OUT PERMISSION OF THE PUBLIC REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHICALLY WITH COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - NOT TO BE

A.

I think the idea which prevailed was that a very large

number of floors are occupied by men only, and that in

/auch cases, cubicles are not really necessary. This Ordinance, No 23 of 1903, allowed two cubicles in some rooms, and one in others. The idea would be that such

rooms should become the family rooms, and that where a small alteration to the building would secure permission to put up two cubicles instead of one, that that

inducement would lead to the alteration, and that the alteration would improve the sanitary condition of the

- buildings.

If not, why is only one cubicle allowed on sach of thelbg06: upper floors of the existing houses, and none on these

of a new huliding ?

Page 90Page 91