82
+
Buildings (4)
Continuation.
Some remarkable evidence, however, was given at the inquiry. The Inspector of Buildings who examined the ruins on the morning after the collapse, said the cause of the disaster was the faulty condition of the party wall between tenements No. 32 and 34. This wall, said the witness, was entirely hollow: It had been erected about 1881 when the tenements were only three storey high. About 12 months before the disaster, the roof had been taken off and another storey added. This increased weight and rains soaking through the roof had probably weakened the already faulty wall and it had collapsed, bringing the two tenements down with it. The third tenement, No. 30, had been badly damaged.
The Acting Assistant Director of Public Works said that the tenements were built in 1878. In November 1900, permission had been granted to add another storey to the tenements. These additions conformed with the Building Ordinance and Public Health Ordinance. In witness's opinion, the cause of the disaster was to be found in the wretched brick work, not only in the party wall, but throughout the whole building.
The architect who had prepared the plans for the additional storey said he had sent one of his assistants to measure up the premises. This assistant had reported the walls sound and plumb and that putting up an additional storey would comply with provisions of the relevant Ordinances.
He also said he was not engaged to supervise the work. His duty began and ended with the preparation of the plans. If he had known the wretched state of the walls, he would undoubtedly have recommended his client to re-build.
Re-called, the Acting D.P.W. said that architects in cases like this were not empowered to supervise construction work. The Inspector of Buildings had power to inspect buildings only when he had reasonable grounds to believe that works were being carried out in contravention of the Ordinance. The inquiry was then closed.
Immediately, there was an outburst of indignation. The inquiry had fixed the blame on no one; had resulted in nothing that might prevent further similar disasters.
*
As a result of representations to the Home Authorities, another inquiry was ordered and this was commenced on Friday, September 20, 1901.
The first witness called was the owner of Nos. 32 and 34, Cochrane Street. The architect's plans, he said, were not followed in detail. He had put an arch in one wall so that more air could be admitted. He did not get the permission of the Public Works Department to build this arch. Certain brick arches dividing the kitchen on the ground floor from the back yard were shown in the plan but were dispensed with.
82
+
Buildings (4)
Continuation.
Some remarkable evedence, however was given at the inquiry. The Inspector of Buildings who examined the ruins on the morning after the collapse, said the cause of the disaster was the faulty condition of the party wall bet- ween tenements No. 32 and 34. This wall said the witness was entirely hollow: It had been erected about 1881 when the tenements were only three storey high. About 12 months before the disaster, the roof had been taken off and another storey added. This increased weight and rains soaking through the roof and had probably weakened the already faulty wall and it had had collapsed bringing the two tenements down with it. The third tenement, no. 30 had been badly damaged.
The Acting Assistant Director of Public Works, said that the tenements were built in 1878. In November 1900 permission had been granted to add another storey to the tenements. These additions conformed with the Building Ordinance and Public Health Ordinance. In witness's opinion, the cause of the disaster was to be found in she wretched brick work, not only in the party wall, but throughout the whole building.
The architect who had prepared the plans for the additional storey said he had sent one of his assistants to measure up the premises. This assistant had reported the walls sound and plumb and that putting up an additional stay would comply with provisions of the revelant Ordinances.
He also said he was not engaged to supervise the work. His duty began and ended with the preparation of the plans. If he had known the wretched state of the walls, he would undoubtedly have recommended his client to re-build.
Re-called, the Acting D. P. W. said that architects in cases like this were not empowered to supervise construction work. The inspector of Buildings had power to inspect buildings only when he had reasonable grounds to believe that works were being carried out in contravention of the Ordinance 1 The inquiry was then closed.
Immediately there was an outburst of indignation. The inquiry had fixed the blame on no one; had resulted in nothing that might prevent further similar disasters.
*
As a result of representations to the Home Authorities another inquiry was ordered and this was commenced on Friday September 20, 1901.
The first witness called was the owner of Nos 32 and 34, Cochrane Street. The architect's plaps he said, were not followed in detail. He had put an arch in one wall so that more air could be admitted. He did not get the permission of the Public Works Department to build this arch. Certain brick arches dividing the kitchen on the ground floor from the back yard were shown in the plar. but were dispensed with.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.