CO129-469 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1921 [9-12] — Page 449

1.

Enclosure 3.

HONGKONG.

PRATA EAST RECLAMATION SCHEME.

COMPARISON

BETWEEN –

Scheme agreed to by thoso Persons entitled to perutaipaw.

and referred to in Ordinance No. 17 of 1921

and

Scheme "D" approved by the Secretary of State

for the Colonies and referred to in Despatchon No.

365 of 21st October, 1913 and No. 367 of 24th December

1913.

Attached are:-

(a). Oopy of Plan marked "D" showing the Scheme referred

to in the above-mentioned Despatches.

441

(b). Plan marked "E" showing the Soheme agreed to by those

Persons entitled to participate and referred to in

the above-mentioned Ordinance.

II. From the above two Plans it will be noted that the principal

points of difference between the two Schemes are:-

(1). Whereas Plan "p" shows the Scheme as terminating at

+

Bowrington Janal Plan "E" shove the Soheme extended

to its natural and inevitable termination at East

Point.

Scheme "D" was shown as terminating at

Bowrington Canal for legal reasons in connection

with the terms on which the Owners of Marine Lot

No. 52 and Inland Lot No. 29 would be allowed

to participate in the Scheme,

By the conversion of a portion of Inland Lob No.

29 into a Marine Lot (Vide Despatches No. 49 of

10th February, 1915 and No. 86 of 1st April,

1915).

Messrs.