717
16-
*
*
•
Less
supposing the house accommodation were amply sufficient to afford this space many of the Chinese would probably prefer more company and less room. than 300 feet is not dangerous in a climate like Hongkong when people keep the doors and windows open all the year round.
On this point the Government has shown itself absolutely impervious to reason."
The Building Ordinance, 1889.
To this Bill had been relegated various provisions which had excited opposition in the original Public Health Bill.
Among them were the provisions relating to 10 feet back-yards which had perhaps been more strongly opposed than any other clause of the Public Health Bill. This provision as already mentioned found no place in the new Bill, doubtless owing to the strong opposition to it already expressed by the memorialists and Chinese deputation referred to in the foregoing notes on the Public Health Ordinance, and to the plea for compensation for the area that would be taken from house property if the provision were made law. Other provisions were those relating to the restriction of mezzanine floors, the provision of sufficient windows, and of privies in domestic buildings.
The latter subject had called forth strong opposition when it appeared in the Public Health Bill.
The Building Bill was read a first time on the 17th January, 1889, and a second time on the succeeding 1st of March,
In committee a number of clauses and among them those relating to the matters above mentioned were postponed for further consideration.
The Honourable C. P. Chater expressed himself as opposed to the general introduction of privies and advocated the provision of more latrines instead.
The clause in the original Bill relating to mezzanine floors prohibited such floors with less spaces than 9 vertical feet above and below them, and provided that when any mezzanine floors existed which had not the above spaces above and below and which appeared to the Sanitary Board to be injurious to health, they might be removed to such extent as might be approved by the Governor in Council.
In the result the clause regarding mezzanine floors was modified so as to exact the 9 vertical feet of space above and below only in the case of a mezzanine which extended over more than two thirds of a room.
Where the mezzanine extended over two thirds or less of the room 6 vertical feet above and below were only required.
This provision remained in force till it was repealed by Ordinance 15 of 1894 which prohibited mezzanines altogether except under regulations framed by the Sanitary Board, which are very stringent, are to be found in the Schedule to Ordinance 13 of 1901.
These regulations,
Section 48 of the Bill which required in every habitable room in a new domestic building a window opening directly into the air and equal to one tenth of the floor area of the room, was eliminated.
Privies which were made compulsory by the original Bill in all new domestic building were made optional only, His Excellency the Governor expressing the opinion that if they were made compulsory it would be impossible to ensure that they were kept clean.
The Bill, which like all other sanitary measures, was of the nature of a compromise, was read a third time and passed on the 18th April, 1889.
The Closed Houses and Insanitary Dwellings Ordinance 1894 (No. 15 of 1894).
The Bill was read a first time on the 15th September, 1894.
It was based on the recommendations of the Permanent Committee of the Sanitary Board coupled with those of the Housing Committee appointed by His Excellency the Governor.
The Permanent Committee had drawn special attention to overcrowding and section 9 of the Bill accordingly required for each occupant of a house of 30 square feet of floor space and 400 cubic feet of air space.
17
On the 22nd December the Bill was read a second time, and in Committee the Honourable E. R. Belilios moved as an amendment, and the Honourable Dr. Ho Kai seconded, that the floor space should be 21 square feet and the air space 300 cubic feet.
The whole of the Unofficial Members including the Honourable A. McConachie, the representative of the Chamber of Commerce, voted for the amendment and the Official Members against it, and the amendment was therefore lost.
Section 10 giving power of inspection to ascertain breaches of the sections against overcrowding, was also opposed by the whole of the Unofficial Members, but their amendment limiting the inspection to coolie-houses and common lodging-houses was lost.
Section 12 of the Bill limited the height of buildings to be erected in the future, and the Honourable E. R. Belilios moved that the section be deleted from the Bill. He contended that in cities in the United States and in Verona and Venice there were high buildings, and that the section would retard and prevent the progress of the Colony.
The Honourable C. P. Chater seconded.
The whole of the Unofficials voted in favour of the amendment and the Officials against it and the amendment was lost.
The Honourable C. P. Chater then proposed as a second amendment that where the width of a lane is 15 feet and does not exceed 25 feet the limit of height of buildings should be 16 feet.
He remarked that if the clause as it stood were passed there would, he thought, be "an uproar in the Colony the like of which has never been known before."
The section was left over for further discussion, and on the 24th of December the Director of Public Works moved an amendment to clause 12 as it now stands. The amendment was accepted with a slight modification and the Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Insanitary Properties Ordinance 1890,
By a Commission dated the 29th July, 1896, His Excellency Sir William Robinson appointed a Commission consisting of the Colonial Secretary, the Honourable C. P. Chater, the Honourable T. H. Whitehead, Mr. N. J. Ede and Mr. (now Sir Thomas) Jackson "to enquire into the existence of Insanitary properties in the Colony and the means to be adopted to improve such properties and to abate overcrowding."
The Commission held various sittings between August, 1896, and June, 1897, and examined the Medical Officer of Health, the Director of Public Works, and Messrs. Danby, Leigh and Palmer, Architects and Civil Engineers in the Colony,
The Commission submitted their report on the 9th of March, 1898.
In it they stated that there were many insanitary properties in the Colony and dwellings which in their opinion were unfit for human habitation.
The Commission recommended the provision of (a) certain open spaces in the rear of dwellings,
as follows:--
In houses over 26 feet in depth by opening out one half of the space between the principal rooms and the enclosing walls at the back of the premises, and where there was no such space by providing an open space at the back of not less than 40 square feet.
(b) Certain measures for the greater restriction of cubicles.
(c) The surfacing, channelling and lighting of private streets and lanes at the owners' expense.
The Commission, which it may be noted included among its members the representative on the Legislative Council of the Chamber of Commerce, recorded its opinion that the existing provisions of section 9 of Ordinance No. 15 of 1894 (by which 30 square feet of floor area and 400 cubic feet of air space were required for each occupant of a house) were "sufficient for the purpose of abating overcrowding"; and made no recommendation on the subject of latrine accommodation.
Two of the members of the Commission - Messrs. Whitehead and Ede - added a separate recommendation of their own to the report aimed at preventing the re-erection on land already sold by the Crown of back-to-back houses where the depth of the houses exceeded 30 feet.
717
16-
*
*
•
Less
supposing the house accommodation were amply sufficient to afford this space many of the Chinese would probably prefer more company and less room. than 300 feet is not dangerous in a climate like Hongkong when people keep the doors and windows open all the year round.
On this point the Government has shown itself absolutely impervious to reason."
The Building Ordinance, 1889.
To this Bill had been relegated various provisions which had excited opposition in the original Public Health Bill.
Among them were the provisions relating to 10 feet back-yards which had perhaps been more strongly opposed than any other clause of the Public Health Bill. This provision as already meu- tioned found no place in the new Bill, doubtless owing to the strong opposition to it already expressed by the memorialists and Chinese deputation referred to in the foregoing notes on the Public Health Ordinance, and to the plea for compensation for the area that would be taken from house property if the provision were made law. Other provisions were those relating to the restric- tion of mezzanine Boors, the provision of sufficient windows, and of privies in domestic buildings.
The latter subject had called forth strong opposition when it appeared in the Public Health BIL.
The Building Bill was read a first time on the 17th January, 1889, and a second time on the succeeding 1st of March,
Ju committee a number of clauses and among them those relating to the matters above mentioned were postponed for further consideration.
The Honourable C. P. Chater expressed himself as opposed to the general introduction of privies and advocated the provision of more latrines instead.
The clanse in the original Bill relating to mezzanine floors prohibited such floors with less spaces than 9 vertical feet above and below them, and provided that when any mezzanine floors existed which had not the above spaces above and below and which appeared to the Sanitary Board to be injurious to health, they might be removed to such extent as might be approved by the Governor in Conncil.
In the result the clause regarding mezzanine floors was modified so as to exact the 9 vertical leet of space above and below only in the case of a mezzanine which extended over more than two thirds of a room.
Where the mezzanine extended over two thirds or less of the room 6 vertical feet above and below were only required.
This provision remained in force till it was repealed by Ordinance 15 of 1894 which prohibited mezzanines altogether except under regulations frumed by the Sanitary Board. which are very stringent, are to be found in the Schedule to Ordinance 13 of 1901.
These regulations,
Section 48 of the Bill which required in every habitable room in a new domestic buildings window opening directly into the air and equal to one tenth of the floor area of the room, was
eliminated.
Privies which were made compulsory by the original Bill in all new domestic building were isile optional only, His Excellency the Governor expressing the opinion that if they were made compulsory it would be impossible to ensure that they were kept clean.
The Bill, which like all other sanitary measures, was of the nature of a compromise, was read
a third time and passed on the 18th April, 1889.
The Closed Houses and Insanitary Dwellings Ordinance 1894 (No. 15 of 1894).
The Bill was read a first time on the 15th September, 1894.
It was based on the recommenda-
tions of the Permanent Committee of the Sanitary Board coupled with those of the Housing Committee appointed by His Excellency the Governor.
The Permanent Committee had drawn special attention to overcrowding and section 9 of the Bill accordingly required for each occupant of a bouse of 30 square feet of floor space nad 400 enbic feet of air space.
17
On the 22nd December the Bill was read a second time, and in Committee the Honourable E. R. Belilios moved as an amendment, and the Honourable Dr. Ho Kai seconded, that the floor space should be 21 square feet and the air space 300 square feet.
The whole of the Un-official Members including the Honourable A. McConachic, the represen- tative of the Chamber of Commerce, voted for the amendment and the Official Members against it, and the amendment was therefore lost.
Section 10 giving power of inspection to ascertain breaches of the sections against overcrowd- ing, was also opposed by the whole of the Un-official Members, but their amendment limiting the inspection to coolic-houses and common lodging-houses was lost.
Section 12 of the Bill limited the height of buildings to be erected in the future, and the Honourable E. R. Belilios moved that the section be deleted from the Bill. He contended that in cities in the United States and in Verona and Venice there were high buildings, and that the section would retard and prevent the progress of the Colony.
The Honourable C. P. Chater seconded.
The whole of the Un-officials voted in favour of the amendment and the Officials against it and the amendment was lost.
The Ionomable C. P. Chater then proposed as a second amendment that where the width of of a lane is 15 feet and does not exceed 25 feet the limit of height of buildings should be 16 feet.
He remarked that if the clause as it stood were passed there would, he thought, he "an uproar
in the Colony the like of which has never been known before."
The section was left over for further discussion, and on the 24th of December the Director of Public Works to meet the objection of the Honourable C. P. Chater moved us an amendment clanse 12 as it now stands. The amendment was accepted with a slight modification and the Bill was read a third time and passed.
The Insanitary Properties Ordinance 1890,
By a Commission dated the 29th July, 1896, His Excellency Sir William Robinson appointed a Commission consisting of the Colonial Secretary, the Honourable C. P. Chuter, the lonourable T. H. Whithead, Mr. N. J. Ede and Mr. (now Sir Thomas) Jackson "to enquire into the existence of Insanitary properties in the Colony and the means to be adopted to improve such properties and to abate overcrowding."
The Commission held various sittings between August, 1896, and June, 1897, and examined the Medical Officer of Health, the Director of Public Works, and Messrs. Danby, Leigh and Palmer, Architects and Civil Engineers in the Colony,
The Commission submitted their report on the 9th of March, 1898.
In it they stated that there were many insanitary properties in the Colony and dwellings which in their opiniou were unfit for human habitation.
The Commission recommended the provision of («.) certain open spaces in the rear of dwellings,
as follows:--
In houses over 26 feet in depth by opening out one balf of the space between the principal rooms and the enclosing walls at the back of the premises, and where there was no such space by providing an open space at the back of not less than 40 square feet.
(4.) Certaiu measures for the greater restriction of cubicles.
(c.) The surfacing, channelling and lighting of private streets and luues at the owners' expenso. The Commission, which is may be noted include l among its members the representative on the Legislative Council of the Chamber of Commerces, recordel its opinion that the existing provisions of section 9 of Ordinance No. 15 of 1894 (by which 30 square feet of floor area and 400 cubic feet of air space were required for each occupant of a house) were "sufficient for the purpose of abating overcrowding "; and made no recommendation on the subject of latrine accommodation.
Two of the members of the Commission-Messrs. Whitehead and Ede-added a separate recom- mendation of their own to the report aimed at preventing the re-erection on land already sokl by the Crown of back-to-back bouses where the depth of the houses exceeded 30 feet.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.