View report page

227
HOUSING
I stated in my report for 1966 that intrinsically, housing is a
constant cycle of regeneration and the idea that its problems can
be solved by a once-and-for-all re-building effort is fallacious. Not
only is it fallacious but dangerous in that its general acceptance
can lead eventually to complacency. A perusal of current literature
on this subject seems to suggest that there is some difficulty, if not
reluctance, for this truism to be received. Under prevailing conditions,
viz, financial stringency, lack of suitable land, shortage of
skilled labour, demands for higher standards as a result of improved
education, etc., it has clearly been found impossible to keep pace
with the need for more and better housing. Every decaying house
is not being replaced and it must be remembered that even today's
new dwelling will be obsolete in 70 years or less. It is a sobering
thought to realise that the useful life span of a house built just
after the last war is almost half over.
As it has been estimated that approximately 26% of all dwellings
in England and Wales are over 80 years old, inevitably one must
be drawn to the conclusion that conversion and improvement are
essential ingredients of any housing programme if for no other
reason than the need to preserve our viable communities and if
urban society itself is not to disintegrate.
However, house preservation has always been an integral part
of the environmental health service and its future importance can
certainly be no less although much will depend upon the vigour
with which this objective is pursued. It should have strong central
and local government support. Sometimes, unfortunately, statutory
protection of tenants leads to deterioration of property and conservation
of existing housing accommodation is thereby threatened.
In the public interest a reappraisal of legislation is indicated.
Undoubtedly, it can be said that this is the day of the planner.
Everywhere planning has become somewhat of an obsession—
so much so that it is now open to the accusation that some planning
is perpetrated for "planning's sake". This can hardly be the case
but it is true to say that in many aspects of the housing field,
previous planning has failed the community, in that, on some
occasions, what has been provided has not been what was required.
No blame, however, attaches to the planner who is constrained to
work within a severely restricted brief. For example, effective
planning for special housing needs involving low-maintenance,
long-life schemes are sometimes prejudiced by hasty settlements