Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Fulham Borough]
This page requires JavaScript
3. Action under Statutory Powers during the Year:—
| 1 | |
| (2) Number of dwelling-houses which were rendered fit after service of formal notices:— | |
| (a) By owners | 2* |
| 7* | |
| (b).—Proceedings under Public Health Acts:— | |
| (1) Number of dwelling-houses in respect of which notices were served requiring defects to be remedied | 456 |
| (2) Number of dwelling-houses in which defects were remedied after service of formal notices:- | |
| (a) By owners | 327* |
| 1 | |
| (c).—Proceedings under sections 11 and 13 of the Housing Act, 1936:— | |
| (1) Number of dwelling-houses in respect of which Demolition Orders were made | 1† |
| (2) Number of dwelling-houses demolished in pursuance of Demolition Orders | |
| (1) Number of separate tenements or underground rooms in respect of which Closing Orders were made | 7 |
| (2) Number of separate tenements or underground rooms in respect of which Closing Orders were determined, the tenement or room having been rendered fit | __ |
| 4. Housing Act, 1936.—Overcrowding | |
| (a).— (i) Number of dwellings overcrowded at the end of the year | 810 |
| (ii) Number of families dwelling therein | 810 |
| (iii) Number of persons dwelling therein | 4,906 |
| 1 | |
| 503 | |
| (ii) Number of persons concerned in such cases | 2,893 |
| - | |
| See below. | |
* Including Notices served during 1937 and complied with during 1938.
† Order quashed on Appeal. (See comments below.)
Comments on Table 14.
3 (c).—Demolition. Upon representation by the Medical Officer of Health that the house
was unfit for human habitation and not capable of being rendered fit at a reasonable cost, the Council
commenced the procedure laid down in the Housing Act for the making of a Demolition Order. The
owner failed to submit any specification of works which he was prepared to execute and the Demolition
Order was duly made. The owner then appealed against the order to the County Court, and prior to
the hearing commenced considerable structural works on the house. As a consequence of these works
the house at the time of the hearing was not the same house as the one upon which the Council had