View report page

114
out in previous Annual Reports owing to the remoteness of the
newly-built London County Council houses from their work, and
their inability to pay the rents charged, there is a reluctance on the
part of those inhabitants mostly in need of better housing conditions,
to accept accommodation on these estates.
During the year the London County Council commenced the
erection of houses on the St. Helier (Morden) Estate, which is—
unlike the Becontree, Watling and Downham Estates—reasonably
accessible from this Borough. It has been possible, therefore, to
refer to the County Council an increased number of applications
with a view to special consideration being given thereto on the
grounds of overcrowding or hardship. The following table shows
the results of such action during the year:—
Referred in
previous
years but
not then
dealt with.
Referred
in
1930.
Total.
Families accommodated 10* 71 81
Offer declined by applicant or applicant
otherwise suited — 14 14
Recommendation not accepted by the
London County Council 2 34 36
Still under consideration 67 42 109
Totals 79 161 240
* Includes 3 cases in which the recommendation had been previously
not accepted by the London County Council.
Repair of Unfit Houses.
As in past years a good deal of useful work in the repair and
reconditioning of unfit houses was carried out during the year
1930, under the provisions of the Housing and Public Health
Acts, details of which will be found summarised on pp. 118-119.
The work of the Council has been fully described in previous
Annual Reports, so that it is unnecessary to say more than that
the policy of the Council in using the powers of the Housing Acts
in securing the reconditioning of seriously defective house property
continues to be fully justified.
In only one case was it found necessary for the Council's
Works Department to enter and carry out, in default of the owner,
the necessary repairs in compliance with a notice served under
the Housing Acts. Considerable difficulty was experienced in
enforcing the Council's powers in this case and it became necessary
on more than one occasion to proceed against the owner for obstruction
(vide p. 81). Eventually the premises were put into repair.