View report page

79
(1) It is, to say the least, doubtful if the premises
referred to as "obstructive buildings" are in point of law
and practice "obstructive buildings" within the meaning
of the statute.
(2) Assuming the practicability of proceeding under
Section 38 to get these buildings demolished, the point
seems to have been entirely lost sight of that compensation
would have to be paid by the public authority to the
owners precisely as though the site and buildings were
being acquired under Part I. of the Housing Act.
(3) Having expended money in the manner suggested,
and having enforced such repairs as are legally possible
to the houses allowed to remain, the resultant effect would
be to perpetuate a series of lop-sided streets consisting of
small, worn-out houses that have been patched and
repaired time after time already.
(4) From the point of view of public expenditure the
plan would be costly and as to permanent improvement
negative.
(5) It is only fair to note that the proceedings suggested
have never yet been carried out under a housing
scheme, and that it is peculiar that a poor borough like
Bethnal Green should be selected for such a novel experiment.
At the Public Health Committee on March 5th, a
letter from the London County Council was considered; it
was to the effect that the Committee for the Housing of the
Working Classes were not in a position to report upon the
representation relating to the Brady Street area, and were
unable to furnish this Council with further information as
to their proposals, and that in view of the coming election