CO537-37 — Page 40

hi' tampling o

*2594.

din d

a very

476

1903, should be put on the same footing as insanitary building of the early sighties, and all qualifications deleted from the new Ordinance.

A.

I cant speak with regard to that matter at all. It is a point to which my attention has not been directed in

any way.

20929

The chairman:-

20929

Had you anything to do with the drafting of the 1899

Ordinance ?

A

The 1899 Ordinance, nothing.

r Shelton Hooper: -

30

A.

31 Q.

20930

There are two questions I want to ask about a new matter, Mr Chairman. Ir the case of a building that was in the course of erection and the plans for which had been passed previousto January 1903 under this ordinanc

and this building was not finished until the middle of 1904, what certificate did the Building Authority issue

on completion?

A certificate under the old Ordinance.

Therefore they were perfectly sanitary, and people 20931 could occupy them from the middle of 1904, although they were not in accordance with this?

A.

Yes.

32

Q.

20932

Therefore, would the provisions of this Ordinance apply to those buildings now, supposing they did not conform

to it?

A.

That is rather a difficult questien to answer,

3% Q.

A.

34

3.

A.

I will try to assist you. Having given you that case,

I will ask you to read section 268 of this Ordinance.

Yes. (Reads).

Now, in face of that, would it not be a perfectly

sanitary building if you granted your certificate in

the middle of 1904 for occupation 18 months after the

passing of that ordinance, although it did not conform to the provisions of it?

I would be disposed to say so, but this refera to the certificate or the written permission of the Board,

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:-

CO. 537

37

OUT PERMISSION OF THE

REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPH WITH

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH - HOT TO BE

RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

Page 40Page 41

A

}