View report page

62
No doubt this was in the mind of the Home Secretary when he decided after the
Inquiry held by his Commissioner, that the areas should be dealt with under Part
II. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, rather than under Part I., on
account of the difficulties of re-housing a large number of persons in such overbuilt
districts.
The Local Government Board, on the 18th October, wrote, saying that they were
not satisfied that the sites named were unsuitable, and that the Board must require
the Vestry to submit proposals for re-housing a greater number of persons than the
number for which the schemes provided.
On the 24th November, a Report was adopted by your Vestry, which was subsequently
forwarded to the Local Government Board, pointing out that the requirements
of the Board with regard to re-housing appeared burdensome.
It was given in evidence before the Commissioner appointed by the Local Government
Board, and appears on page 26 of the printed Minutes of Evidence, that there
are on the Prospect Terrace Area more than three times and very nearly four times
as many people as ought to be there, and similar evidence was given in the case of
the Brantome Place Area. As a matter of fact these areas, to begin with, are
densely crowded, and therefore the number, 1300, as the number to be displaced,
must be regarded as an excessive number of persons on a given area, and yet so
crowded as not to come within the technical definition of over-crowding for
proceedings in a Police Court, but only possible to be dealt with under the Housing
of the Working Classes Act. The amount of cubic space to be allowed for persons
occupying the new buildings proposed will average probably double that occupied
by persons now inhabiting the buildings. It follows that if the higher standard
were now adopted and applied to the existing buildings it would mean turning out
one-half of the population. This, however, cannot be so applied, as there is no legal
machinery for applying such a standard to old buildings. It, therefore, follows that
to put in force the Housing of the Working Classes Act, the Authority must
practically provide double the amount of cubic space for the same population, or to
put it in another form, must rehouse twice the population they displace. The
Housing of the Working Classes Act in requiring rehousing never contemplated
increasing the cubic space per head for the purpose of calculating the number to
be rehoused. However, on sanitary grounds, it is desirable in considering schemes
for rehousing, to estimate an increase of the general amount of cubic space per
head occupied by the inhabitants of an old area.
The question of the number rehousable is further complicated by the shape and
situation of the Area, and the necessary disposition of new streets and buildings.
It is quite clear from Section 4 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890,
under which Section these Areas were reported, that the object of the Act is to
open out the buildings in order to expose them to more light and air. This cannot
be done without sacrificing a certain amount of space, and space means housing
accommodation.
Another aspect of the question must be considered, and that is, that Central
London is spreading ever outwards, and large numbers have been driven from
Districts further South and East into these Areas, causing the numbers upon the
Areas to be much greater than they should be. These persons have been displaced
from other districts by the conversion of dwelling houses into work-places, workshops,
and factories, and by Street improvements, and these Districts, and those
who trade in them, have not been called upon to provide housing for those they
have displaced. That duty is now cast upon your Authority.