Sessional_Paper_1901 — Page 704

(13)

The

Looking at plan B it is necessary that the lower party wall should be a greater length than the other unless its foundations are deeper. The elevation of the front of the house on plan B shows the upper party wall to be at least 50 feet by scale. Looking at that plan B it does not appear that in all probability the lower party wall is higher that 50 feet. Each wall in plan B is practically up to the same height. The floor level of No. 32 is a foot above the top of the footing of the foundations. plan is therefore inacenrate. If the wall was made the same height as shown on the plan it won! i be 50 feet 6 inches. If the wall had been drawn correctly it would have shown that the wall would have been over 50 feet high when completed and therefore would not have been in accordance with the Ordinance. E

In plan the party wall is shown as 50 feet high from a line 6 inches high below the floor level. The footings are 3 feet 10 inches below the level of the floor. If the wall had been built in accordance with the plan it must have been 53 feet 4 inches and therefore not of the thick- ness required by the Ordinance. It is never the practice for the Public Works Department to open up the foundations. We always rely on the architect to find out the depth of the foundations. In the case of houses built on the slope, I would not expect foundations to be of an average depth of six inches below the floor. As a rule the least depth would be six inches. It depends upon the nature of the ground. It is usual in submitting alterations and additions to show all the existing works as well as the new. These plans (B and E) do not show the existing work. There is nothing in the plans to show 2 cross walls. This is an important omission. There is nothing in the pinns to show that the staircases are to be moved. In plan E no staircases are shown at all. In the The removal of the stair- plan E there are no foundations shown to the internal cross walls.

case would probably weaken the party wall. No detail drawings of the verandah of No. 34, Cochrane Street, have been submitted. The owner of No 32, Cochrane Street, did not sign an agree- ment with respect to the verandah. That was the only reason why I sent Mr. Crisp to look at I read in article in the Cline Mail in the verandah in May. I did not send him there to inspect it. Angust, 1899, on jerry buildings, which gave rise to considerable discussion. There have been collapsos heföre and since August, 1899. We had a discretion and could have told the architees that we would not have approved of the plans unless the buildings and foundations were opened up. bound to approve of these plans unless we knew that the plans were not in accordance with the Orli- nance. I do not know if we had even the power to do that. There is nothing in the Ornance to say that we must approve of the plan within a certain time. I notice after the collapse the following deviation of the works from the plaus. In No. 4. Cochrane Street, there is a large archway instead of a wall with a door in it. There is no internal cross wall as shown in the plan.

We were

There are no

If

opinion

I do nor think the

chimneys according to the plan. There is a pipe flue to serve the ground floor only. The pipe flue is not shown on the plan. There is a recess in the party wall between No. 31 and No. 36 in the cook- house on the ground floor. It is 2 feet 3 inches square and 9 inches deep. It appeared to be fairly I believe it new. On the roof was a superstructure built of brick work-7 feet high 5 fest square. had been used as a cook-house. Alongside of this cook-house there was another superstructure which had been partly broken away. In No. 32, Cochrane Street, there was an arch instead of a crass wall. The internal cross wall is not there at all. There are no chimneys there as shown in the plan. There is a similar superstructure as in No 34 only not quite so high. It lookel like a cook-house. The side of the superstructure appeared to be built on the party wall between the two houses. Superstructures of this sort built on the party wall are not considered as part of the main wall for the purpose of

I increasing the thickness. I think these deviations might have contributed to the elapse do not think the want of chimneys had anything to do with the collapse nor the superstructure on the roof. the cross wall had been built it would live strengthened the buildings. I am still of the s as to the cause of collapse as was given in my evidence on the 30th August vibration of the Blacksmith's shop hit very much effect on the house. In my opinion the party wall would have come down sooner or later without the additional storey. Each of these buses would, after the alteraton, be allowed to house 55 persons under the Public Health Ordinance. During the year 1900 plans were deposited for raising 189 houses with an extra storey. Plans were approved for the whole of these 189 houses. I arrived in the Colony in April, 1890. I was placed in charge of the Building Ordinance and also works carried out under Works Annually Recurrent Expeditare." That include Maintenance of Government Buildings, Maintenance of the Public Cemetes, Mainte nance of the Praya Wall and Piers, Maintenance of Light-houses. Maintenance of Ronds all over the Colony, Lighting the City with gas, Maintenance of the Public Recreation Ground, and orlar works of a miscellamine alad which cropped up from time to time. Mr. Brown was then Surveyor General amd my stuff consisted at that time of an assistant engineer, two overseers for rouds, three overseers for buildings, one overseer in charge of the cemeteries and one overster for Building Ordinance work, he-ides two or three native foreuen. Mr. Cooper suceceded Mr. Brown in 1891, and he gave me.then another assistant engineer and added Maintenance of Telegraphs to my work. This staff was main- tained until I went on leave in March, 1897. I returned to the Colony in March, 1898, and Mr. Ormsby was then Director of Public Works. He told me I would have to do with one assistant engineer. That was Mr. iluzeland, and nearly all his time was engaged in Building Ordinance work. Mr. Ormsby added to my work Maintenance of Buildings in the New Territory and Maintenance of Telegraph in the New Territory. I was invalided home in the Autumn of 1898 and returned to the Colony in December, 1899. My staff then consisted of one assistant engineer, two overseers of roads,

•