Sessional_Paper_1907 — Page 311

185 (51)

This would greatly overcome the difficulty with regard to New Buildings.

With regard to deep floors in existing buildings I consider that as far as cubicles are concerned each floor must be judged on its merits by two competent and responsible Officers of the Board. I do not see how any hard and fast rule can be laid down to govern all floors.

In my opinion every consideration should be given to the tenants of floors which are well lighted and ventilated, as regards the erection of cubicles.

*Drawing No. 4.

This sketch shows exactly what I mean. On this floor many of the cubicles shown are illegal yet not the slightest Sanitary objection can be taken to them. Notices have recently been served in cases of this kind.

I am of opinion that the cubicle sections should be enforced in a practical and fair manner. I think it is a great mistake for the Officers of the Sanitary Department to carry out their duties on the same lines as the Police force.

The Officers must act as instructors and advisers for the bulk of the poor Chinese people do not clearly understand the complicated points in connection with the cubicle question, the whole Ordinance should be enforced in a more generous and friendly spirit, I am fully of opinion that the Sanitary Authority will not inuke substantial headway until we can get the masses of the people with us in our work.

I would suggest that with a view to getting this matter cleared up, and put upon a more practical basis that the cubicles and open space question stand over for the present.

*Drawing No. 5.

shows the conditions in force at present in an occupied house, built before Ordinance 1 of 1903.

Briefly showing that in cases where the window area of a floor is equal to 1/10th the floor area, opening to external air at front only, and with no opening or openings to external air at the rear, One Cubicle only.

In cases where openings of sufficient size are found opening to external air, both front and back, 7wo Cubicles only.

Open Spaces at the rear of Domestic Buildings.

In my opinion an alteration should be made in Section 175 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1903.

At the present time all houses are treated alike no matter whether the houses are back to back, or whether a lane exists at the rear, in many cases a lane of 10 or 12 feet wide is formed at the rear of a block of buildings, this lane is not taken into account when dealing with the question of the provision of open space under Section 175.

* Drawing No. 3 shows clearly what I mean.

I would also point out that in a large number of cases the houses have kitchen area at the rear of each floor of about 80 or 90 superficial square feet, before Section 175 of Ordin- ance No. 1 of 1903 is enforced, but when the requirements of this Section are obeyed, and "one half of the entire space intervening between the principal room or rooms and the main wall at the back of such building as well as the corresponding portion of roof is cut away,' the portion of the kitchen remaining being less than 50 square feet contravenes Section No. 140 of this same Ordinance.

17

In addition to which the remaining portion of the kitchen is far too small for the requirements of the persons, which occupy the floor, I would suggest that the following addition be made to Section 140, to follow after the words "not less than 50 square feet in line 5, "unless the original kitchen has previously been cut away under Section 175."

*Not Published.