268
(
Date:
18.12.86.
Time:
9.0
-
9.50
Reporter:
PMO
1
1
CHAIRMAN:
Your report ?
2
2
3
MR MOTTRAM:
I thought the report was quite explicit.
23
4
4
5
CHAIRMAN:
Yes, I have read your report.
5
6
6
7
MR MOTTRAM:
I really don't think it is necessary that
7
8
we should answer or make any further comments on the report.
It
8
9
10
11
seems to be quite explicit. Sure, we must have done otherwise
we would not have included for a waterproof concrete in the basement
in 1976. That is the reason why waterproof concrete was included,
9
10
11
12
12
so that there would not be leaks.
13
15
13
14
My question is were you aware, because this report specifically
16 says that the contractors have informed you?
MR MOTTRAM: I think you are taking it out of context.
CHAIRMAN: I think you missed my question, Mr Mottram.
14
15
16
17
18
17
18
19
20
CHAIRMAN:
Well, please point out to me what paragraph
21
of the report.
22
23
MR MOTTRAM:
Mr Burdett will take over from me.
25
24
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
26
27
28
MR BURDETT: Sir, if I may, I think the answer to that question is that the consultants were always of the view and still
are of the view that if their specifications had been complied with
there would have been no leaks. As their report points out, it is common practice in the building industry for a contractor who finds 30 himself in difficulty to start blaming specifications. The
consultants do not accept at all that the specifications, if followed properly, would have resulted in leakages, they take the opposite view and this is supported by the fact that it is common practice that this kind of waterproof concreting is commonly used in basements of large buildings all over Hong Kong, as the Director of Architectural Services himself must have known because his office approved the
31
32
33
34
35
36
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
∞ 0 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.