“For the purposes of this Act, the re-erecting of any building pulled down to, or below the ground floor, or of any frame-building of which only the frame-work is left down to the ground floor, or the conversion into a dwelling house of any building not originally constructed for human habitation, or the conversion into more than one dwelling house of a building originally constructed as one dwelling house only, shall be considered the erection of a new building” (38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 159).
But the difficulty at once presents itself as to what is meant by the words “ground floor.” Does this mean the actual floor level, or the cubical space contained by the walls, floor and ceiling of the “ground floor” (or as it is sometimes called “ground story”) of the building? The latter may be assumed to be the correct interpretation, for if we order a man to hang a picture, or to fix a chandelier on the “ground floor,” we certainly do not expect to find them placed upon the floor.
It is important that this point should be settled definitely, or some more explanatory term employed in the Act in order to determine what is a new building, for in the present state of uncertainty it may be urged that the whole building must be razed to the ground, whereas if the proper meaning of “ground floor” is taken, would the removal of the superstructure and destruction of the ceiling only of the “ground floor” bring the new work under the definition of a new building and within the operation of the byelaws?
This uncertainty is now taken advantage of by builders and others, who sometimes find it irksome and inconvenient to be obliged to construct a building in accordance with the byelaws of any town. Somewhat sharp practices are consequently resorted to in order to evade the law, and old buildings are converted into new ones without any powers of interference by the urban authority or their surveyor. This is greatly to be regretted, as unless the building comes within the operation of the byelaws, it is frequently erected without any sanitary precautions or even stability.
Sometimes a so-called repair of a building is commenced by adding a new roof perhaps, at a higher level than the old one; when sufficient time has elapsed to allay suspicion, a new front is erected, and then new back and side walls in due course, the alteration of the interior floors not attracting much attention.
Cases of this description are very troublesome to the town surveyor, as if legal proceedings are to be taken against the offender, it is necessary for the surveyor to make surveys and drawings of the works as they are in progress in order to prove his case, and these might extend over a considerable period of time.[154] In order to make these surveys it would be necessary for him to enter the premises whilst the works were in progress, but there does not seem to be any powers conferred on him by any Act of Parliament for such a purpose, so that really he has no power to prevent the occurrences I have mentioned.
It must also not be forgotten that what may sometimes appear to be an entirely new building, may only be an addition to one that existed before the passing of the Act, and although the new work may be ten times as large as the old, still much conflicting evidence may be brought to bear before it can be proved to be a “new building” within the meaning of the Act.
Turning again to section 159 of the Public Health Act 1875, these words will be found as defining also what is a new building: “or the conversion into a dwelling house of any building not originally constructed for human habitation.”
It would have been better in the interests of sanitation if the Act had prohibited the conversion of any building at all into a dwelling house without the approval of the urban authority, for as the law stands at present, it is open for an owner of property to convert stables or warehouses, &c., into dwelling houses, by simply asserting and bringing witnesses or other evidence to prove that they were “originally constructed for human habitation” irrespective of whether they are adapted for the purpose or not, thus defeating the intention of the Public Health Act to secure a better description of dwellings than those that were erected before the passing of the Act.
When a dispute does arise with anyone as to whether a building comes within the definition of “new” or not, it is well if possible to agree upon certain points of fact and upon plans, &c., before the case comes into court, and then to endeavour to get the magistrates to “view.” This course if pursued often saves lengthy litigation, and a great waste of time and money.