View report page

123
The area in question had more than the forty
superficial feet but was only four feet across.
The architect appealed against the decision of the Public
Health Committee and the appeal was heard before the
London County Council Appeal Committee on December 6th.
The appellant contended that since the closet faced the
longest way of the area the words "a distance across of not
less than five feet" were satisfied, because "across" in this
instance meant the distance from the closet to the opposite
wall.
On behalf of the Borough Council it was argued that
such a reading was inadmissible, that the words meant the
least width from wall to wall of any part of the area ; that if
the appellant was correct then a person looking up the
street was looking across the street, and that if the appeal
was allowed then if it were possible a person could fix a
closet abutting on an area 2 feet wide and 20 feet long, for
by these dimensions he would get forty feet superficial, and
if the door of the closet opened on to and faced the longest
dimension then it would be, according to the ideas of the
appellant, more than five feet across.
The Committee of the London County Council
unanimously dismissed the appeal.