Mr. DONOVAN LEE (Member of Council), proposing the vote of thanks, said he was very glad to be able to do this because, having made some tests himself of the same type, he could appreciate how much work the authors had had to put into it.
The Council regret to announce the deaths of Joseph Fawkner BUTLER and Henry James DEANE (Past Presidents); Stanley Edward CHAPLIN, William Henry DUFFETT, James LANNON, Elijah PAGE and Charles Henry WOODFIELD (Members); Charles Stanley CLITHEROE, Percy Sidney DIXON, Thomas McKnight MCCULLOCH and Andrew MITCHELL (Associate-Members).
THE title of this paper, whilst being reasonably brief, suffers from the defect that it does not adequately describe the paper. The original request which was made by the Literature Committee was for a paper on a comparison between ordinary factory construction and modern portal frame construction. In an attempt to compress this into the title something may have been lost, so that it is necessary to explain at once that this paper deals with various forms of construction by means of comparisons with the object of criticising and discussing the advantages of the modern portal frame. In order to effect these comparisons it seemed appropriate to consider the relative merits of the forms of construction applied to a particular factory. Such a comparison might lay itself open to the criticism that the comparison applied to a particular case rather than to the general problem, but it will be seen subsequently that the particular case chosen is quite general in its form and possesses few characteristics peculiar to itself. F.R. Bullen
IT has been said that our generation has lived great history and has only rarely been aware of it. This is undoubtedly true, but it would be wrong to think of our history in terms only of two Wars. Last year saw the passing of several great and far-reaching Acts and the Town & Country Planning Act, 1947, was not the least of them. Like all post-1945 legislation it has been so drafted that matters arising under it are to a very great extent for "decision by administration" and that means for the decision of the Minister of Town & Country Planning or the "appropriate Minister." A great deal is left unsaid by the Act, and has been left to Regulations and Orders- these again are to be framed by the administrators: sometimes one is inclined to think they are framed for the administrators. The Act and its attendant Regulations are long and complex but, apart from its many planning provisions, the idea behind its financial effect on private owners is basically simple, for it amounts to nothing more nor less than the first step in the nationalisation of land. I say the first step, because although it certainly did not nationalise land it did nationalise all development value in land. The Act is probably the greatest of all measures affecting land, and the buildings on land, since the Statute of Uses in 1535! F. Hellings