View report page

80
D.—Proceedings under section 20 of the Housing Act, 1930:
(1) Number of separate tenements or underground rooms in respect
of which Closing Orders were made 14
(2) Number of separate tenements or underground rooms in respect
of which Closing Orders were determined, the tenement or
room having been rendered fit 6
Closing Orders on Part of a Building.
Closing Orders may now be placed upon any part of a building
which is occupied by the working classes, and not only, as heretofore,
on any part of a building which was let as a separate habitation; and
also upon any part of a house which, though not occupied, is suitable
for occupation by the working classes.
Underground Rooms.
An important step forward has been taken in the new Housing
Act in the matter of underground rooms that do not conform to the
requirements regarding such rooms. Under the Act of 1925, a Closing
Order could be placed upon such a room if it was " habitually used as
a sleeping place," but it was permissible to continue to use it for
purposes other than those of a sleeping place; in other words, it could
be used as a living room with impunity. By the Act of 1930, this
permission was cancelled, and it was no longer legal to use as a living
room a sleeping room which had been closed for such a purpose. The
new Act now gives local authorities power to place Closing Orders
upon underground living rooms in the first instance if they are not or
cannot be made fit for habitation.
The required standards to which underground rooms must conform
are prescribed in the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, and in
Regulations made under the Housing Act, 1909.
During the year, 69 rooms were reported as being illegally
occupied. In 16 cases the illegal occupation was discontinued. Twelve
rooms were made to conform to the required standard, and in one
case a Closing Order was made. At a certain house it was found that
two underground rooms, from which a family had been removed to
the Westcroft Housing Estate owing to the unsatisfactory conditions
under which they were living, had been re-let. The owner was prosecuted
and fined £2 with 20s. costs.