View report page

Insanitary Area.
During the year under report, a good deal of correspondence was carried on between this
Council, the London County Council, and the Local Government Board, as the result of
representation made to the London County Council under Part I. of the Housing of the Working
Classes Act, in November, 1904. The annexed map shows the exact position of the area in
question, which is coloured red.
On May 9th, 1905, the following report was made to the Public Health Committee : —
"On the 11th of November, 1904, I made an official representation to the London
County Council under Part I. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, in
respect of an area comprising Cusack Place, Gareth Place, and Porlock Place, in this
Borough. This area contains 41 houses, viz.: 15, 17, 19, 21 and 22 to 40, Porlock
Place, and the whole of Gareth and Cusack Places. The population, as the result of
two enumerations during the year, was 230, and the total number of deaths for the six
years 1898 to 1903, inclusive, was 55; 32 of these were children under 5, and 23
over 15.
This makes a crude death rate for these years of 39.85, which when corrected for
age distribution raises it to 42.17, compared with 21.4 for the whole Borough for the
same years.
The notifications for these years numbered 21, viz.: 2 small-pox, 10 scarlet
fever, 2 diphtheria, 3 enteric fever, 4 erysipelas, making the attack rate 15 per thousand
compared with ten per thousand for the whole Borough.
During the period in question the phthisis death rate for the area was 2.9, that
for the rest of the Borough being 1.9, and for London 1.7 per thousand living. The
area is .38 acres in extent, and runs approximately north and south for about two-thirds
of the length of Crosby Row.
It is considerably below the level of Crosby Row, and has to be entered either by
an incline, or, in the case of Gareth Place and one entrance to Porlock Place, by going
down several steps. The ground level of the area is itself below Trinity high water
mark. The houses are small two-storied cottages either with no back yards or very
small ones, and they are overtopped on all sides by high buildings, viz.: on the west by
Crosby Bow, on the north by Snowsfields, on the east by Hamilton Buildings and
St. Paul's Church and Vicarage, and south by the Charterhouse Mission Building.
It is thus situated in a kind of well, and this combined with the narrowness,
closeness and bad arrangement of the courts and houses, causes them to suffer from a
deficiency of light, air, and ventilation, which is injurious and prejudicial to the health
of the inhabitants.
The individual houses are old and some of them in bad repair, but the defects, in
my opinion, are of such a nature that they can only be remedied by a proper reconstruction
scheme, which would comprise the houses on the east side of Crosby Row and
the two or three houses in Snowsfields bounding the north end.
In answer to my letter and representation, I received a letter dated February 15th,
1905, in which the Clerk to the London County Council, after stating that the Housing
Committee had had my letter and representation before them, goes on to say : —
' In reply I am directed to inform you that the Committee, after having given
the matter the most careful consideration, are of opinion that any scheme which
may become necessary for the reconstruction and rearrangement of the premises
within the area should be undertaken by the Metropolitan Borough of Bermondsey
under Part 11. of the Act of 1890. It appears, however, that 12 houses in Porlock
Place, together with some houses in Crosby Row, are at present in the market, and
it is anticipated that at no distant date the whole of the area will be redeveloped
like other property in the neighbourhood. Pending such redevelopment, it is
thought that any serious defects in the premises themselves can be adequately
dealt with by the Borough Council under its existing powers. Under these
circumstances the Committee do not see their way to advise the Council to prepare
a scheme for dealing with the area under Part I. of the Act.'
In this connection I have ascertained since that the site occupied by 22 to 33,
Porlock Place and 12 to 22 (even numbers), Crosby Bow is being offered for building
purposes.
On March 3rd I wrote to the Housing Committee urging my reasons why the area
should be dealt with by the London County Council. They replied on March 17th,
reiterating their first opinion, and stating ' they are still of opinion that the area is one
which cannot be deemed to be of general importance to the County of London, and
should be dealt with by the Borough Council under Part 11. of the Housing of the
Working Classes Act of 1890. If the conditions prevailing in the area are considered
by the Borough Council to be such as to require a scheme of reconstruction, it would
appear that the provisions of Sec. 39 (lb) of the Act would enable the Borough
Council to prepare a scheme for the improvement of the area.'
They also stated that they proposed asking the Council to pass a resolution on the
28th inst. in the form indicated by Sec. 73 (b) of the Act, and report same to the Local
Government Board. This they did, and the Local Government Board have written
asking that they may be furnished with the observations of the Borough Council on the
resolution of the London County Council.