Sessional_Paper_1887-1888 — Page 353

( 15 )

In every new house that may be erected of more than one story in height, the Government requires a back yard of at least 15 feet in width, this appears to us to be a waste of valuable ground entirely uncalled for; without losing sight of the fact that a back yard is absolutely necessary from a sanitary point of view, still a minimum of 15 feet would entail an unnecessary waste of ground and an enormous loss on the land-owner against which we must most forcibly protest.

Paragraph IX in the letter from the Government does not mention the actual breadth of ground required for the new streets, but we are informed that it is the intention to reserve 100 feet for the New Praya and for the purpose of widening the present Praya.

This, we are of opinion is excessive and would suggest that 80 feet—to be apportioned between the two streets as the Government may deem fit-will be amply sufficient.

We must also protest against the proposed new Crown rent of $200 per quarter acre, inasmuch as Crown rents have hitherto always varied according to the position of the plot of ground, and we would suggest that this principle be adhered to and the same rate charged per quarter acre, as is at present charged for the ground immediately in rear of the proposed reclamation, we can only regard any increase in the rate as a premium on the new ground, which the Government pointedly states it does not intend to levy.

We beg to remain,

Sir,

Yours faithfully,

DAVID SASSOON, SONS & Co.

per J. A. Mosely, `

Enclosure D.

HONGKONG, 9th September, 1887.

Honourable C. P. CHATER,

SIR,

We are in receipt of your Circular of 3rd instant, with reference to the Recla- mation of the foreshore, accompanied by copy of your letter of 13th July to the Acting Colonial Secretary and copy of his reply of 11th August on the same subject.

We are willing to carry out the conditions of the scheme, but not before knowing how you propose to divide the two pieces of ground in front of marine Lot No. 7, which we have seen in the Plan of 6th August at the City Hall.

As regards the outer one we see no difficulty in dividing it in proportion to the area of the three present sections in the said marine lot No. 7, by running on it lines, from North to South, parallel with those already marked in the Plan to the eastward contiguous to the numbers 34, 34 and 33.

But as regards the inner and triangular portion we shall feel obliged by your opinion on the subject..

We are, Sir,

Your obedient Servants,

VIRGINIA A. R. DO ROZARIO,

J. M. E. MACHADO, Executors of the Estate of M. C. do Rozario.