View report page

83
controvert the statements contained in that representation,
they declined to undertake a clearance scheme on
the ground that it would be unnecessary for the London
County Council to act as the estates would shortly be
developed by private enterprise. All this happened nine
years ago, the private enterprise suggested has proved
a myth, and the area remains just as it was, with the
exception that it is nine years older and proportionately
more decayed. The Local Authority and their Officers
feel that all ordinary efforts have been exhausted and
that anything short of an absolute and entire clearing
away of this congested area is worse than useless.
Since my last representation was made there has
been the usual enquiry with many interviews and much
correspondence. My statistics have been carefully
checked, the area has been inspected on many occasions,
not only by the responsible Officers of the Council, but
by various Committees and individual members. Up to
the present no decision has been arrived at : but,
though no formal objection has been taken, 1 gather that
considerable opposition has been raised to a clearance
scheme. A suggestion was made at one of the
conferences between the Borough Council and the
Housing Committee of the London County Council that
it would be possible to deal with the area on lines similar
to those said to have been successfully carried out in
Manchester and other places on what is known as Mr.
Nettlefold's plan. Shortly, this is for the Borough
Council to obtain powers under Section 38 of the
Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, to purchase,
as obstructive buildings, the houses on one side of each
of the narrow streets, demolish these, and throw the
cleared site into the roadway. That the effect of this