View report page

113
The Housing Situation in 1920.
It will be seen therefore, that the Housing problem in Battersea
at the end of the War was threefold in character.
1. A decline in building before the War, and the practical cessation
of building during the War years, had resulted in grave overcrowding
at least in many areas of the Borough, which was
intensified by the sudden increase in the marriage and birth
rates in 1919 and 1920. As a result of the rapid survey undertaken
of the housing needs of the Borough in 1919, it was
estimated that about 800 new working class dwellings were
required to meet the immediate needs of the population.
2. A considerable amount of old, worn-out property in the Borough
was in such a bad condition that only very radical treatment
would avail to deal with it. The closing of much of this
property was impracticable owing to the difficulty of re-housing
the dispossessed occupants, and there were, as already shewn,
some thousands of houses which required to be reconditioned.
3. A considerable number of houses registered as houses let in
lodgings which it was necessary to deal with under the provisions
of the Housing Act.
There was little opportunity for the Council, owing to the lack of
available building sites, to provide new houses. So far as was practicable
the Council secured and built upon every available site and since the War,
apart from the Plough Road Area, a number of new working class
dwellings have been erected. It was early recognised, however, that
it was, in the main, to the County Council that the Borough Council
would have to look to provide housing accommodation to meet the
shortage in the Borough, and to relieve the severe overcrowding that
prevailed in parts of the Borough. Their expectations in this respect
to some extent have been fulfilled, and a considerable number of families
have been accommodated on the various Estates which the County
Council has built in London and the vicinity. Unfortunately, this has
only, to a limited extent, relieved the housing situation in Battersea,
due partly to the disinclination of many families in urgent need of
housing accommodation, to live outside the Borough, and largely to
the rents charged for the London County Council houses being beyond
the means of many applicants from Battersea. This has led to serious
and even dangerous overcrowding, which it has been difficult, and in
many cases impracticable, to abate.
Overcrowding.
In the summer of 1923, a Report on overcrowding was submitted
by the Medical Officer of Health to the Council. Although there is
evidence pointing to an improvement or amelioration in this direction,
owing to the large number of houses built during the interval by the
London County Council and to a lesser extent by Municipalities or
private enterprise, the conclusions come to in that Report are true in
my opinion, as far as old, worn-out, working class property in London
is concerned. The failure of the Housing activities in London, and no
doubt elsewhere in the Country, is due to the fact that little or no effort
has so far been made to provide for the tenant who is unable to pay the
rentals charged for the new houses built.
There are several different standards of overcrowding in use, none
of which can be regarded as completely satisfactory. It is not sufficient
to measure overcrowding according to the density of the population only.
Individual houses must be taken as units if a satisfactory picture is to
be obtained. Three standards are available for measuring overcrowding
in individual houses:—
1. The Registrar General's standard, which is used in the Census
Reports, and in which overcrowding is indicated if there were