London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

City of Westminster 1903

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Westminster, City of]

This page requires JavaScript

60
"The County Council has fixed that for each bed there shall be
300 cubic feet of air space and 30 feet super. In many of the houses
this will result in a substantial decrease in the number of occupants.
The total reduction in the houses which will remain will amount to
about 86.
"The houses, with few exceptions, are unsuitable, either from
position or construction, for the purposes for which they have been used,
and the improvements, although substantial, which the County Council
are affecting under this Act can only be regarded as a compromise.
"If it is necessary to provide accommodation for the particular class,
it would be well that houses should be built by the Local Authorities
specially designed for the purpose, which would enable the present
unsuitable style of house to be gradually extinguished."

Licences were granted as follows:—

Address.Name of Occupier.Licensed forFormer Number of Beds.
6. 6a, 6b and 6c, Great Smith StreetFrederick Storey201 men218
11, 12 and 13, Hanover StreetG.H.Burns105 „118
2, Harvey's BuildingsGeorge Salvage35 „52
26, Litchfield StreetJohn E. Biss53 „54
10 and 11, Monck StreetMary Horrigan64 „64
108, Regency StreetHenry Smith8 „18
45 and 47, Tufton StreetEmma Cook91 „105
107, Wardour StreetLeopold O. Roper87 „87
*22, Vere StreetWilliam R. Smith48 „48
*27 and 28, Vere StreetGeorge Campbell48 „48
*29 and 30, Vere StreetDo.176 „176
16, Strut ton GroundEmanuel Levy211 „228
33, Great Peter StreetT. and G. Oyler401 „424
For One Year—
*9 and 10, Stanhope StreetWilliam Booth (Sal vation Army)120 „-

*These houses are scheduled under the Holborn to Strand Improvements Scheme,
and therefore no requirements have been made in respect thereto.
Licences were refused in respect of No. 16 Snow's Bents and No. 40
Great Peter Street.
The owners of these houses appealed to the Magistrate sitting at
Rochester Row, and I prepared evidence relating thereto. In regard to
the former the appeal was not allowed on account of the danger from
fire objections; in the latter, decision was adjourned in order to allow the
owner to submit a scheme for the reconstruction of the house. The
ground floor rooms were unsuitable for habitation, and it would have
been necessary for the City Council to have taken action in the matter
if the London County Council had not done so. After many conferences