The word feature in this case is that the Architect, Mr. Em Hageland - who was an Engineer in the P.W.D. and retired in 1900 to take up private work in Hong Kong (vide 16703/00) - does come within the definition of "works" sec. 7 (12).
5. W. J. 26-13 of course comes within the definition of "works" sic. 7 (12). See also 11749 and 31 (x) — 4669-3000-8-01.
The addition of a fourth story to a 3-storied building is not "new building" within sec 3 of ordn 15 of 1889, nor does it come within the definition of "building" (sec 7.11). I think the D.W.P is right in saying that no certificate under sec 5 of the ordn was required in respect of this addition as a "new building."
But under sec 72 it was undoubtedly subject, secondly, to the provisions of the order. The plans were submitted to the P.W.D under sec & were approved after being in conformity with the order after the usual examination, which appears to have been a casual one.
I think there was negligence (1) in approving the plans after insufficient examination (2) in not exercising the power of entry and inspection under sec. 75.
I do not understand the amounts of the fine. Presumably they were inflicted under sections 69 & 77 of ordn 15 of 1889 and bre 4 of order 7 of 1895, the owner & contractor each being convicted of several offences, and fined for each of them.
It is most unsatisfactory that this neglect to exercise their powers under sec. 724 & 75 of the Building Ordinance was not discovered earlier. I think that the Government should be told that this neglect was most unsatisfactory and that it led to the loss of 43 lives and 24 injured persons. It appears that only 3 of the mentioned in 32500 or, recovered 1500/01.
We should ask for a full report as to what steps are proposed to be taken to prevent such disasters in future and for an expression of the Attorney General's views as to whether the law requires strengthening so as to increase the penalties; and whether this is not a case in which proceedings for mandamus could have been brought against anybody.
Draft for consideration as at 27/3. If there are any alterations in the above minutes, please enclose Mr. Weir's question & the answer when given or ask whether compensation was given CPL. 29 at once.
ཧཱུཾ།
neglected to exercise their powers
under
5. 724 75 of the Building Ordce. I think that the Gov should be told
most imsatisfactory. that this neglect
discover under what
Y
I
Can
inot
was
clances of the Building Ordoes. the fines referred to at the end of the Report, were inflicted; the punishment seems mild, & we should I think,
ask for a full report of the proceedings
for
an
expression of
the
taken, & Attorney Gent's views as to whether the law requires strengthening
Ꮽ
fear
cade
so as
to increase the penalties; & whester
this is not a which proceedings for mandaughter could have been brought against anybody, but I am disposed to think
that as
there was
neglect
om.
the part
of a Govt. Dept, which I beat lead to the loss of 43 lives ( It appears
the 24 injured persons.
that only 3 of
mentioned in
We
32500 or, recovered,
1500/01,
an early
should ask for
*
report
as
to what steps are proposed.
to be taken to prevent such droasters
in future
جيكية
The word feature in this
that the Architect. Air Em Hageland -
wer
10 fame an
Engineer in the 1.W.D.
wad
who
A
A
retired in 1900 to take up fawati work in 16703/00)
the Coloms.
5. W. J. 26-13
of does come within refinition of "works" sic. 7 (12).
A
31 (x) — 46ñ69-3000-8-01
Ser also 11749
Новисло
The addition of a franth story to
}
219
3-storied building
is not when building" within sec 3 of orda 15 of 1559, nor does it coms within the definition of "building" (ssc 7.11) if.). It and I think the D.W.P is right in "Saging that no certificati under ssc 5 of the corda
53
was required in respect of this addition as a
"new building, ".
But sender ssc 72 it was undrastudley subject,
Semently, to the provisions of the order. Thes
sic Sq
مسمادا
win
submitted to the P.W.D under sic
& torre approved
bering in conformity with
the order after the usual examination" which
appraisto to a casual one-
I think time was
was negligence
(of in approvince, the plans after insufficient examinatio (3) in not exercising the power of catry and
inspection under ssc. 75.
I do not understand the amounts of the fine. Presumabing
stu
inflected under sections 69077 of ord2 15 4 1889
and bre 4 of order 7 of 1895, the owner & contractor rach
being convicted of several offence, and fined for rach
4
them
J.R
Draft for considuation as at t
27/3
any
in the above minutes, enclose Ii Weir's question & the answer When given of ask whether Compensation was given
CPL. 29 atonce
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.