The board deem it essential that there should be a App. IV. strict observance of the rules in regard to these matters. Pt. II. Yours faithfully, To GEORGE VULLIAMY, Superintending Architect. The Surveyor of the District of DISTRICT SURVEYORS ACTING PRIVATELY. Superintending Architect's Department, 6th August, 1863. Dear Sir, I am directed by the Metropolitan Board of Works to request your attention to the terms of the 37th section of the Metropolitan Building Act (1855),' which provides that If any building is executed, or any work done to, in, or upon any building by or under the superintendence of any district surveyor, acting professionally or on his own private account, it shall not be lawful for such surveyor to survey any such building for the purposes of this Act, or to act as district surveyor in respect thereof or in any matter connected therewith, but it shall be his duty to give notice thereof to the said Metropolitan Board, who shall then appoint some other district surveyor to act in respect of such matter.' I am further to inform you that the board consider that the intention of this enactment is, that whilst the district surveyor is not precluded from exercising his profession beyond the limits of the district to which he is appointed, he is, so far as regards that district, jealously to reserve himself from any bias by which he may be influenced in the performance of his public duties. To Yours faithfully, Superintending Architect. The Surveyor of the District of See now s. 144 of the Act of 1894, ante, p. 234. But see the Standing Orders of the Council of January 1, 1895, ante, p. 451, which require candidates for appointment as district surveyors to sign a declaration that they will give their whole time to the duties of their offices. App. IV. DANGEROUS BUSINESSES. Superintending Architect's Department, 12th October, 1864. Dear Sir, I am directed by the Metropolitan Board of Works to forward you a copy of a letter which they have caused to be sent to the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and to the clerk of each vestry and district board in the metropolis. As the subject connects itself with the duties of the district surveyor, the board have thought it right, in the interest of the metropolitan public, to make you acquainted with the letter enclosed. Το Yours faithfully, GEORGE VULLIAMY, Superintending Architect. The Surveyor of the District of DANGEROUS BUSINESSES. 7 & 8 VICT. CAP. 84, SECT. 54 (1844).' Superintending Architect's Department, 11th October, 1864. Sir, The Metropolitan Board of Works has been considering the effect which the Metropolitan Building Act, cap. 84, sect. 54,' as it now stands, with the cessation of the rights which were saved up to 1864, may have upon the metropolis; and it has occurred to the board that it may not be out of place if they request your attention to the law as it has stood since the month of August, 1864. The Metropolitan Building Act of 1844 prohibits, after 9th August, 1864, the erection of any buildings within a certain distance from any buildings, public road, or ground in use for any of the following businesses, viz.: The manufacture of gunpowder, or of detonating powder, or of matches ignitable by friction or 1 So much of the Act of 1844 as remained unrepealed at the passing of the Act of 1894 was repealed by s. 215 of that Act, ante, p. 302. The carrying on of any of the businesses enumerated in the above letter is now prohibited by s. 118 of the Act of 1894, ante, p. 207. otherwise, or other substances liable to sudden explosion, App. IV. inflammation or ignition, or of vitriol, or of turpentine, Pt. II. or of naphtha, or of varnish, or of fireworks, or of painted table covers, and any other manufacture dangerous on account of the liability of the materials or substances employed therein to cause sudden fire or explosion; and it prohibits persons from establishing or newly carrying on, after 1844, any such business within the prohibited distances.' This Act, however, saved the rights of persons until August, 1864, who had actually carried on, in 1844, businesses of the nature referred to within the prohibited distances. As now all these saving rights have ceased, it is unlawful for any person to carry on such businesses within the distances, however long they may have been in existence; and the board think it may be useful to draw your attention to the subject, and, at the same time, to request that you will bear in mind that several sections in the Act of 1844 are in force on these subjects. I would also call your attention to the provisions of the Act 23 & 24 Vict. cap. 139, with regard to gunpowder, fireworks, &c. Your obedient servant, Superintending Architect. PROJECTIONS FROM BUILDINGS. Superintending Architect's Department, Spring Gardens, S.W., 31st October, 1864. Dear Sir,-With a view to improve the practice of builders, and to cause a better observance of the law regarding the construction of overhanging eaves and cornices, I am directed by the board to address to the district surveyors a circular on the subject, as the rules of section 26 of the Building Act do not appear to be uniformly observed, and many streets of houses are in progress with wooden eaves merely lathed and plastered, or cemented on the soffit, and covered with slate as part of the roof, without any corbel of separation at the party walls, as would be required if application were made to the board. The 1 See now s. 73 of the Act of 1894, ante, p. 140. App. IV. Pt. II. corbel is a great protection against the spread of fire from roof to roof, and in the case of shop fronts it is to a limited extent a requirement of the statute. Section 17 of the Act may give a somewhat similar protection to eaves; for it provides that 'every party wall shall be carried up above the roof, flat, or gutter of the highest building adjoining thereto, to such height as will give a distance of 15 inches measured at right angles to the slope of the roof, or 15 inches above the highest part of any flat or gutter, as the case may be.' Section 26 of the Act 2 directs that the eaves or cornices to any overhanging roof (except the eaves and cornices to detached and semi-detached dwelling-houses distant at least 15 feet from any other building and from the ground of any adjoining owner) shall, unless the Metropolitan Board 3 otherwise permit, be of brick, tile, stone, artificial stone, slate, cement, or other fireproof material.' The board are desirous that the above rules should receive more attention than they appear to do in practice; and that where eaves and cornices are not rendered fireproof as required, application should be made to the board by the builders or architects in every case. The object of that condition, as to corbelling out the party wall, which the board annexes to any approvals granted by them, is, that the roof covering and wooden portions of the eaves should not be continuous, but be broken, as provided regarding party walls under section 17. Yours faithfully, GEORGE VULLIAMY, To Superintending Architect. The Surveyor of the District of See now s. 59 of the Act of 1894, ante, p. 122, which requires that every party wall shall be carried up of a thickness, in a building of the warehouse class, equal to the thickness of such wall to the topmost storey, and in any other building of eight and a half inches above the roof flat or gutter of the highest building adjoining thereto to such a height as will give a distance (in a building of the warehouse class exceeding thirty feet in height) of at least three feet, and (in any other building) of fifteen inches, measured at right angles to the slope of the roof, or fifteen inches above the highest part of any flat or gutter, as the case may be. 2 Section 73 of the Act of 1894, ante, p. 140, contains provisions similar to those referred to in the letter, save that it includes barge-boards,' as well as eaves and cornices, and instead of the exception above set out, excepts the eaves, barge-boards, and cornices to detached and semi-detached dwelling-houses in which the party walls are corbelled out so as to project four inches beyond such eaves, barge-boards, or cornices.' 3 Now the London County Council. BONDING BRICKWORK. Superintending Architect's Department, 15th December, 1866. Dear Sir,-A case has been decided in the police-court at Lambeth, of a special nature, and which it is hoped. will not be taken as a precedent in regard to others, as the judge probably did not intend that his decision should so rule. The facts are these : 1. A builder proceeded in the usual manner, and under the direction of a local architect and surveyor, to erect four houses of three storeys in height, the basement having walls of 13 inches in thickness, and two storeys, 9 inches. 2. When the roofs came to be finished, arrangements were made for rooms in the roof, thus constructing a fourth storey, and rendering the ground floor storey insufficient in the thickness of its external walls. 3. The party walls were properly constructed. 4. When the district surveyor objected to the irregularity the builder proceeded to thicken the storey, by adding 4 inches of brickwork in Portland cement and with iron bond laid at intervals, and by drawing bricks occasionally so as to form some degree of bond. 5. Such proceedings did not satisfy the district surveyor, as the 'proper bond' required by the statute was not secured as it might have been had the wall been originally 13 inches thick in that storey. 6. The case thus came before the magistrate, witnesses were examined on both sides, and it was proved that the walls, as they now stood, were better than they could be made without being rebuilt in the upper storeys. The magistrate dismissed the case, after patient and careful consideration; thus in the particular case feeling himself not justified in dissenting from the strong evidence given as to the work by the builder. A complexity of decision and practice hence arises which it is desirable to reconcile in the interest of the public. Twice such a decision, as to adding to the thickness of a wall, has been arrived at; and in other courts work has been ordered to be pulled down, because it was not properly bonded or was built of improper materials. App. IV. |