G.F. 323
3
CONFIDENTIAL #B 機密
#
therefore exemption (of individual buildings) is preferable to amendment
of the height restriction". In order to do this D.C.A. hes indicated
that he would have to seek advice from the Airport Operations Committee
and from past record this would be difficult. In any case, exemption
of buildings above the 170 ft. P.D. level was considered by D.C.A,
to be out of the question. A
9.
As only two out of the seven buildings bisected exceed the 170 ft.
P.D. limit one way round this problem might be to consider all buildings
bisected by the 150/170 ft. P.D. line should conform to the 170 ft. P.D.
limit. Accordingly, the two buildings which exceeded this limit should be
reduced to 170 ft. P.D. D.C.A. may have to seek Airport Operations
Committee's agreement to this interpretation of the bisecting line.
However, he would not find it necessary to seek advice from the Committee
either to amend the height limit within the 150 ft. P.D. zone or to exempt
these buildings from height restrictions.
10.
If the proposals to tolerate buildings with minor obstructions
and to apply the 170 ft. F.D. to buildings bisected by the 170/150 ft.
P.D. line are accepted then the total number of problem buildings
requiring immediate attention would be reduced to 26 as follows:-
Buildings exceeding the height limit by
more than 20 ft. Para. 4(a)
3 buildings
Buildings exceeding the height limit by
10 to 20 ft. Para. 4(b)
6 buildings
Buildings exceeding the height limit by 4 to 10 ft. Para. 4(c)
15 buildings
Buildings bisected by the 150/170 ft.
P.D. line which exceed 170 ft. P.D.
Para. 4(e)
Total:
2 buildings
26 buildings
A plan showing the distribution of these 26 buildings and their respective
categories is at Appendix V.
CONFIDENTIAL
}
/Difficulties Anticipated...
機密
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.