View report page

86 HOUSING.
Inspections of premises for the purposes of the Housing Acts were made during the
year at—
Found to be unfit for habitation:—
Bristol Mews, No. 15.
Canterbury Road, No. 165a. Premises vacated.
Bishop's Mews, No. 16.
Requiring works to be carried out:—
Pindock Mews, No. 7 Amberley Road, No. 20 r Dealt with by
Falconer Mews, No. 1 Dealt with Cirencester Street, Nos. 29, Notices under
Harrow Road, No. 75 under the
31, 33, 35, 37 & 39 Sec. 15 of the
Randolph Mews, No. 11 Public Health Desboro' Street, Nos. 2,3,4 & 5 Housing, Town
Lanark Place, No. 7(London) Act, Planning, &c.,
Leinster Street, No. 10 Act, 1909.
No defects found:—
Leinster Street, Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8.
Closing Orders under Section 17 of the Act of 1909 were made during the year with respect
to the following premises :—
35, Clarendon Street—Closing Order made January 9th; no appeal; work done; Order
determined May 21st.
1-9, St. John's Mews.—Closing Orders made June 4th; no appeal; nothing done; Demolition
Orders made November 19th, but operation suspended for six months.
2 & 3, Carlton Mews, Maida Vale.—Closing Orders made June 4th ; no appeal; nothing done ;
Demolition Orders made November 19th, but operation suspended for six months.
8, Desboro' Street.—Closing Order made December 17th.
No. 1, Desboro' Street was represented as unfit for habitation on November 19th, and a Closing
Order was made at the beginning of this year.
In the previous report the making of a Closing Order with respect to No. 17, Desboro'
Street (on December 19th, 1911) was recorded. An appeal against the Order was lodged with
the Local Government Board, but abandoned. Application was made in April of last year for
the Order to be determined, the owner claiming that the premises had been put into a habitable
condition. The work which had been done was of the most wretched description, several of the
original defects had not been remedied, and others had developed. The Council refused to
determine the Order at the meeting of May 21st, 1912. No appeal was taken against such
refusal, and no further repairs were executed. A Demolition Order was made by the Council on
October 1st, and an appeal was lodged against it. The Local Government Board held an
inquiry with reference to the Order, and dismissed the appeal with costs against the owner.*
The progress of this case brought to knowledge a somewhat serious defect in the
machinery of the "Housing Acts." On the Closing Order becoming operative, notices to vacate
the premises were served upon the occupying tenants, some of whom complied with the notices
after more or less delay. Others did not leave until after proceedings had been taken against
them in the Police Court. The owner and/or his agent did their best to persuade the tenants
to remain in the house, and when a tenement became vacant another family was put in. There
appears to be no power in any of the Housing Acts, 1890-1909, to deal with such action on
the part of the owner. The necessary power would have been conferred by a clause in the
Housing of the Working Classes Bill, 1912, brought in by Mr. M. Barlow. That Bill, however,
failed to find favour with the Government.
Cirencester Street Improvement Scheme.—One of the recommendations of the Joint Committee
appointed by the Council and the Board of Guardians to report on the steps to be taken
* The Board's decision was given under date of March 24th, 1913, and was received by the Council on March
31st, 1913. The owner had three months, expiring on June 24th, 1913, in which to comply with the Order. The
premises were burned out some three days after the Board's decision was known.