View report page

Place, and we also gave certain reasons in support of a recommendation that the Local
Government Board be informed that the Council is of opinion that the area in question
is one of general importance to this County of London, and should be dealt with by the
County Council. Our recommendation was adopted by the Council, and the Local
Government Board were accordingly informed of the views of the Council.
A further letter has now been received from the Local Government Board asking
to be furnished with the Council's observations upon the following letter from the
London County Council:—
' I have laid before the Council your letter of the 27th ultimo (71,343 K, 1905),
forwarding a copy of a letter received from the Bermondsey Metropolitan Borough
Council with reference to the official representation made by its Medical Officer in
relation to an area comprising Cusack Place, Gareth Place, and a part of Porlock
Place within the Borough.
With reference thereto I am directed to point out, for the information of the
Local Government Board, that not only has a considerable amount of property in
the immediate vicinity of the area been acquired in recent years and re-developed
as a commercial speculation, but that 12 houses in Porlock Place, together with
some houses in Crosby Row, are at present in the market. It is anticipated
therefore that at no distant date the whole of the area comprised in the official
representation will be re-developed for commercial purposes. Pending such redevelopment
it is considered that any serious defects in the premises themselves
can be adequately dealt with by the Borough Council under its existing powers,
but if it should ultimately be found necessary to prepare a scheme for the
reconstruction and rearrangement of the premises within the area, the Council is
of opinion that such scheme should be undertaken by the Local Authority under
Part 11. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, especially as, generally
speaking, schemes under that part of the Act can be carried into effect more
economically than under Part I. of the Act.
The Council observes that the Borough Council is of opinion that a number of
houses in Crosby Row and Snowsfields which cannot be described as unfit for
human habitation, should be acquired. In view, however, of the probable redevelopment
of the area in the near future the acquisition of such property at its
full commercial value would necessarily involve a large expenditure. The question
of the desirability of widening a portion of Crosby Row and Snowsfields owing to
the amount of through vehicular traffic is, of course, one which should be considered
on its merits from a street improvement point of view, and does not appear to
have a direct bearing on the necessity for the clearance of the insanitary area or the
method of dealing with it under the Housing Act. The Council refers to the fact
that the Borough has already had to bear the heavy expense of clearing one
insanitary area and to contribute towards the cost of larger schemes undertaken by
the London County Council. The area in question is, presumably, that comprised
in the Fulford and Braddon Street, Rotherhithe, Scheme, 1897, with regard to
which it may be pointed out that the Council has already contributed the sum of
£13,500 towards the cost of clearance and has agreed to contribute a further sum
of £1,060 on the understanding that the total amount does not exceed one-half of
the nett cost. As the Board is aware, other local authorities in London have
likewise undertaken schemes for the clearance of insanitary areas within their
respective districts."
We have given instructions for a reply to be forwarded to the Local Government
Board to the following effect: —
(1) That the latter portion of the second paragraph of the above letter appears to be
a contradiction of the first part, because if the County Council seriously believe that the
area will be re-developed for commercial purposes in the near future there was no need
for the County Council to pass the resolution under Section 73 of the Housing of the
Working Classes Act, 1890 —that the case is not one of general importance to the
County of London, and should be dealt with under Part 11. of the Act —but rather they
should have acted under Section 10 and passed a resolution to the effect that they would
not proceed with the scheme.
(2) With regard to the last two lines of the second paragraph the Council is not
aware that a scheme under Part 11. of the Act could be carried out more economically
by them than by the County Council and judging by their experience in a recent scheme,
the Council very much doubt the correctness of the view expressed.
(3) In reference to the acquisition of the additional property the Council believe
that this would be necessary whether a scheme is prepared under Part 1. or Part 11.
(4) The question of the street improvement suggested by the Council although
not an absolute necessity now would become imperative if a proper rehousing scheme
had to be prepared, and to that extent therefore it has a direct bearing upon the whole
matter.
(5) As the County Council advert to the amount contributed by them to the
Fulford and Braddon Street, Rotherhithe, Scheme, 1897, undertaken by this Council
and our predecessors, namely, £14,560, the Council beg to cite the following figures
as another reason for not relieving the County Council from the onus of the proposed
reconstruction scheme.