460
6. Our objections to the above recommendations of the Commissioners regarding open spaces in the rear of dwelling-houses are as follows:--
(a) That the exemption of houses of a depth of 26 feet and under has been made against the weight of evidence taken by the Commissioners or otherwise before them, and is in any case extremely undesirable.
In support of our objection we beg to refer to Dr. CLARK's evidence at pages 11 and 12 of the Report. On page 11 Dr. CLARK Said "I suggest that through ventilation by means of an open space at the rear of every domestic building or any portion thereof, in which persons pass the night, shall be compulsory," and on page 12 he added "I also recommend that where no backyard exists or where the rear of the premises abuts on a lane of a less width than 6 feet such open space should be provided by opening out not less than half of the kitchen at the rear of the premises."
Dr. CLARK did not mention any limit of depth in a house below which his suggestion should not be applied.
At page 19 of the Report it will be found that Mr. F. A. COOPER concurred in the above (and other) suggestions of Dr. CLARK.
Mr. DANBY, a local Engineer and Architect, also concurred in this suggestion of Dr. CLARK's (vide page 29).
The passage reads as follows:-
Mr. WHITEHEAD.-Where no backyard exists or where the rear of the premises abuts on a lane of a less width than 6 feet, is it necessary that open space should be provided by opening out not less than one-half of the kitchen in the rear of the premises?
Mr. DANBY.--I do not agree with that; I assume that that is the back of the houses.
The Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD repeated the question.
Yes, I do agree with that; that is, the back houses.
The CHAIRMAN.-You think that legislation should be introduced to give effect to that?
WITNESS.-Yes. The Public Works Department have been dealing with a great number of these cases, where you ask the Government for permission to put up a verandah. The Government ask you to make these openings and if you will do it the owners will get permission to put up iron balconies, and it makes a wonderful difference to the houses.
Q-You are in favour of making it compulsory?
A. Yes.
You will observe that Mr. DANBY makes no reservation as to a limit of depth below which a house should be exempted from the recommendation which received his support.
Thus three of the five witnesses examined by the Commissioners were of opinion that all houses should be provided with ventilation at the rear as suggested by Dr. CLARK.
The fourth witness that was examined--Mr. R. K. LEIGH---expressed the opinion (vide pages 33 and 34 of the Report) that a house fronting a lane 15 feet in width and with a dwelling room exceeding 30′ in depth requires no light or ventilation at the back.
The fifth witness-Mr. PALMER-was not prepared to go quite so far (vide pages 39 and 40 of the Report), but considered that a room 30 feet deep lighted only from the front and with no light or ventilation at the back is not necessarily insanitary.
We venture to think that few persons, who have any intimate acquaintance with the interiors of tenement houses occupied by Chinese in this city, will share the opinions of Messrs. LEIGH and PALMER, for it must be borne in mind that each floor is divided up into cubicles, and is provided with a common kitchen at the back which also requires light and ventilation. The effect of these cubicles on the light and ventilation of the rooms is well illustrated by the following quotation from the Report of Commissioners: "The back portions of a number of the houses visited by us are dark, ill-ventilated and extremely dirty and in some cases mere dens of filth. The interior of the cubicles or sub-divisions of the living rooms was such that in the great majority of cases their contents could be seen only by the aid of an artificial light."
Mr. LEIGH's bedroom, with no such obstructions in it and no kitchen opening out of it at the back, forms no basis of comparison at all.
As an instance of how undesirable such exemption would be we beg to refer to the houses on the west side of Tung Man Lane. These houses are back to back and less than 26 feet in depth and extremely badly ventilated and lighted.
(b) That while a minimum limit of depth is recommended below which no light and ventilation shall be required, there is no provision for increasing the lighting and ventilation of a house in proportion to the increase in its depth.
We notice with satisfaction that one of the witnesses--Mr. LUEN-recognised the desirability of increasing the light and ventilation of the deeper houses.
At page 33 of the Report (Mr. LUEN's evidence) we read as follows :—
Mr. CHATER.--Suppose these houses were 40 feet deep and back to back without any yard?
Mr. LEIGH.-Then I should oblige the owners to open them up. I would make a sliding scale, so to speak. I would so make it that a house, the dwelling room of which did not exceed 30 feet, did not require any light or ventilation at the back, and from 30 to 40 feet deep half the width of the room should be opened out.
Q-How would you do that?
A-I would pull out half the kitchen.
Q-That would make it satisfactory?
A.-Certainly.
Q.-Suppose 50 feet?
A.--For rooms exceeding 40 feet I would have a 10-foot backyard the full width of the room.
Q.--Can most of those houses afford 10 feet-houses, I mean, as built at the present moment?
A--By my arrangement houses the dwelling rooms of which did not exceed 30 feet deep would lose nothing; the 30 to 40-foot-deep-roomed houses would lose none of their dwelling space and only half of their kitchen, and houses with rooms 40 feet and over would have to lose 10 feet for yard, plus 1 foot 6 inches the thickness of the wall; but they could afford it as the percentage of loss would be much less.
7. We would also draw attention to the addendum to the Report of the Commissioners signed by Messrs. WHITEHEAD and EDE, in which they recommend that "the further erection of dwelling-houses of a greater depth than 30 feet, which cannot be ventilated and lighted on each floor from the back as well as from the front, should be absolutely prohibited and such ventilation should be provided by means of an open space, or yard, of an area not less than one-eighth of the area occupied by the building."
Taking the width of the house at 14 feet (the usual width in this Colony), according to this recommendation we obtain the following results :----
House Depth Yard Area 30 feet 7' x 7'2" 50 square feet 40 .14 × 5 70 50 .14 × 6′.3" 87.33 60 105The recommendation refers to new houses erected on existing sites in place of old ones, but it shows what are the minimum open spaces which Messrs. WHITEHEAD and EDE consider houses should have in proportion to their depth.
8. If we turn now to appendix No. 7 which gives an epitome of the bye-laws in force in some of the principal cities at home for providing open spaces around new dwelling-houses, we find that the aggregate extent of the open space required at the rear of a building is not less than 150 square feet and that the depth of such open space varies according to the height of the building.
9. Finally, we would invite particular attention to appendix No. 14 (a) of the report being an extract from Mr. CHADWICK's Report of the 19th July, 1882. In paras. 149 and 150 the following words will be found:-"The absence of any lane or alley giving access to the backs of the houses, a defect but too common in Victoria, is a great impediment to improvement in sanitation. In framing regulations as to open spaces, continuous back alleys should be insisted on wherever practicable, and in case of existing buildings every effort should be made to introduce means of access to the back parts of them."
In spite of this weighty pronouncement by such an eminent sanitary authority as Mr. CHADWICK, made with special reference to Hongkong after a close study of its sanitary condition, the Commissioners' recommendations would permit of an existing house of twice or three times 26 feet in depth to be no better provided in the matter of an open space at the rear than a house that was just over 26 feet in depth.
10. Our recommendations are based, firstly, on the evidence of the majority of the witnesses examined by the Commission that all houses should have light and ventilation at the rear.
Hence we have not eliminated houses that are less than 26 feet in depth. Secondly, we have adopted the commonsense view that the area of open spaces in rear of dwellings should have some proportion to the depth or height of such dwellings, in which view we are supported by what is required by the bye-laws on the subject in the principal cities at home. Thirdly, we have adopted Mr. CHADWICK's recommendation that an endeavour should be made to insist on continuous back alleys wherever practicable, and to encourage the formation of them by allowing smaller spaces when in the form of a continuous lane.
460
6. Our objections to the above recommendations of the Commissioners regarding open spaces in the rear of dwelling-houses are as follows:--
(a) That the exemption of houses of a depth of 26 feet and under has been made against the weight of evidence taken by the Commissioners or otherwise before them, and is in any case extremely undesirable.
In support of our objection we beg to refer to Dr. CLARK's evidence at pages 11 and 12 of the Report. On page 11 Dr. CLARK Said I suggest that through ventilation by means of an open spre at the rear of every domestic building or any portion thereof, in which persons pass the night, shall compulsory," and on page 12 he added "I also recommend that where no backyard exists or where the rear of the premises abuts on a lane of a less width than 6 feet such open space should be provided by opening out not less than half of the kitchen the rear of the premises."
Dr. CLARK did not mention any limit of depth in a house below which his suggestion should no
be applied.
At page 19 of the Report it will be found that Mr. F. A. COOPER concurred in the above (and other) suggestions of Dr. CLARK.
Mr. DANBY, a local Engineer and Architect, also concurred in this suggestion of Dr. CLARK'S (2 page 29).
The passage reads as follows:-
Mr. WHITEHEAD.-Where no backyard exists or where the rear of the premises abuts on a lane of a less width than 6 feet, is it necessary that open space should be provided by opening out not less than one-half of the kitchen in the rear of the premises?
Mr. DANBY.--I do not agree with that; I assume that that is the back of the houses.
The Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD repeated the question.
Yes, I do agree with that; that is, the back houses.
The CHAIRMAN.-You think that legislation should be introduced to give effect to that? WITNESS.-Yes. The Public Works Department have been dealing with a great number of these cases, where you ask the Government for permission to put up a verandah. The Government ask you to make these openings and if you will do it the owners will get permission to put up iron balconies, and it makes a wonderful difference to the houses.
Q-You are in favour of making it compulsory ?
A. Yes.
You will observe that Mr. DANBY makes no reservation as to a limit of depth below which a houses should be exempted from the recommendation which received his support.
Thus three of the five witnesses examined by the Commissioners were of opinion that all houses should be provided with ventilation at the rear as suggested by Dr. CLARK.
The fourth witness that was examined--Mr. R. K. LEIGH---expressed the opinion (vide pages 33 and 34 of the Report) that a house fronting a lane 15 feet in width and with a dwelling room wi exceeding 30′ in depth requires no light or ventilation at the back.
The fifth witness-Mr. PALMER-was not prepared to go quite so far (vide pages 39 and 40 of the Report), but considered that a room 30 feet deep lighted only from the front and with no light c ventilation at the back is not necessarily insanitary."
the upou
We venture to think that few persons, who have any intimate acquaintance with the interiors of tenement houses occupied by Chinese in this city, will share the opinions of Messrs. LEIGH and PALMER, for it must be borne in mind that each floor is divided up into cubicles, and is provided with a common kitchen at the back which also requires light and ventilation. The effect of these cubicles light and ventilation of the rooms is well illustrated by the following quotation from the Report of Commissioners: "The back portions of a number of the houses visited by us are dark, ill-ventille and extremely dirty and in some cases mere dens of filth. The interior of the cubicles or sub-divisions of the living rooms was such that in the great majority of cases their contents could be seen only by be aid of an artificial light."
Mr. LEIGH's bedroom, with no such obstructions in it and no kitchen opening out of it at the bac forms no basis of comparison at all,
As an instance of how undesirable such exemption would be we beg to refer to the houses on the we side of Tung Man Lane. These houses are back to back and less than 26 feet in depth and extremely badly ventilated and lighted.
(b) That while a minimum limit of depth is recommended below which no light and ventilation sta be required, there is no provision for increasing the lightning and ventilation of a house in proportio to the increase in its depth.
We notice with satisfaction that one of the witnesses--Mr. Luon-recognised the desirability of ncreasing the light and ventilation of the deeper houses,
At page 33 of the Report (Mr. Luen's evidence) we read as follows :—
Mr. CHATER.--Suppose these houses were 40 feet deep and back to back without any yard? Mr. LEIGH.-Then I should oblige the owners to open them up. I would make a sliding scale, so
to speak. I would so make it that a house, the dwelling room of which did not exceed 30 feet, did not Cire any light or ventilation at the back, and from 30 to 40 feet deep half the width of the room should be opened out.
Q-How would you do that?
A-I would pull out half the kitchen.
-That would make it satisfactory? A.-Certainly.
Q.-Suppose 50 feet ?
A.--For rooms exceeding 40 feet I would have a 10-foot backyard the full width of the room. Q.--Can most of those houses afford 10 feet-houses, I mean, as built at the present moment?
A--By my arrangement houses the dwelling rooms of which did not exceed 30 feet deep would lose nothing; the 30 to 40-foot-deep-roomed houses would lose none of their dwelling space and only half of their kitchen, and houses with rooms 40 feet and over would have to lose 10 feet for yard, plus I foot 6 inches the thickness of the wall; but they could afford it as the percentage of loss would be
much less. very
7. We would also draw attention to the addendum to the Report of the Commissioners signed by Messrs. WHITEHEAD and EDE, in which they recommend that "the further erection of dwelling-houses of a greater deptly than 30 feet, which cannot be ventilated and lighted on each floor from the back as well as from the front, should be absolutely prohibited and such ventilation should be provided by means of an open space, or yard, of an area not less than one-eighth of the area occupied by the building."
Taking the width of the house at 14 feet (the usual width in this Colony), according to this recommendation we obtain the following results :----
House 30 feet deep,.
>
77
40
50
60
*
*A
+
34
5
Yurd.
....7' x 7'2′′ (i.e. half width of house)
.14 × 5
.14 × 6′.3"
Area.
50 square feet.
70
87
33
105
??
The recommendation refers to new houses erected on existing sites in place of old ones, but it shows what are the minimum open spaces which Messrs. WHITEHEAD and EDE consider houses should have in proportion to their depth.
8. If we turn now to appendix No. 7 which gives an epitome of the bye-laws in force in some of the principal cities at home for providing open spaces around new dwelling-houses, we find that the aggregate extent of the open space required at the rear of a building is not less than 150 square feet and that the depth of such open space varies according to the height of the building.
9. Finally, we would invite particular attention to appendix No. 14 (a) of the report being an extract from Mr. CHADWICK's Report of the 19th July, 1882. In paras. 149 and 150 the following words will be found:-"The absence of any lane or alley giving access to the backs of the houses, a defect but too common in Victoria, is a great impediment to improvement in sanitation. In framing regulations as to open spaces, continuous back alleys should be insisted on wherever practicable, and in case of existing buildings every effort should be made to introduce means of access to the back parts of them."
(
In spite of this weighty pronouncement by such an eminent sanitary authority as Mr. CHADWICK, made with special reference to Hongkong after a close study of its sanitary condition, the Commissioners' recommendations would permit of an existing house of twice or three times 26 feet in depth to be no better provided in the matter of an open space at the rear than a house that was just over 26 feet in depth.
10. Our recommendations are based, firstly, on the evidence of the majority of the witnesses examined by the Commission that all houses should have light and ventilation at the rear.
Hence we have not eliminated houses that are less than 26 feet in depth. Secondly, we have adopted the commonsense view that the area of open spaces in rear of dwellings should have some proportion to the depth or height of such dwellings, in which view we are supported by what is required by the bye- laws on the subject in the principal cities at home. Thirdly, we have adopted Mr. CHADWICK'S recom- mendation that an endeavour should be made to insist on continuous back alleys wherever practicable, and to encourage the formation of them by allowing smaller spaces when in the form of a continuous lano
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.