View report page

26
Langley Court Area (Note.—Demolition commenced in
Langley Court Nos. 9, 10, May, 1957.)
11
(c) Clearance Area not included in approved proposals—
Antrobus Street/Glasgow Terrace
Area
10-42 (consec.) Antrobus
Street
1a, 1-51 (odd) and 2-66
(even), Glamorgan Street
1a and 1-22 (consec.) Glasgow
Terrace
103-113 (odd), 115-117,
119-123 (odd) and 125a,
Lupus Street
4, Caledonia Place
In February, 1956, the City Council
declared this area, comprising 128
houses, a Clearance Area under
Part III of the Housing Act, 1936,
and on the 19th July, 1956, the
Minister agreed that the houses
are unfit and that he will be prepared
to accept the displacements
for subsidy at Slum Clearance
rates.
Demolition of Individual Unfit Houses.
Nos. 12 and 13, Richmond Buildings, W.1.—In 1955 the City Council,
in lieu of making Demolition Orders under Section II of the Housing
Act, 1936, accepted an Undertaking from the owner of these two houses
that they would not be used for human habitation until the Council, on
being satisfied that they had been rendered fit for that purpose, cancelled
the Undertaking. During 1956 the two houses were demolished, and a
new office building was in course of construction on the site.
(Vote.—The Undertaking was cancelled in May, 1957.)
Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954.
Houses Let in Multiple Occupation.
Section 11 of this Act repealed the provisions of the Housing Act,
1936, and of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, dealing with the
powers to make byelaws to control houses let in lodgings, or occupied
by more than one family. Those provisions have been replaced by a
general power for local authorities to require in such houses adequate
natural lighting, ventilation, water supply, drainage and sanitary conveniences,
and facilities for the storage, preparation and cooking of food,
and for the disposal of waste water.
The City Council formed the view that in exercising its powers under
the 1954 Act it was both undesirable and impracticable for the Council
to lay down inflexible rules in view of: (i) the diversity of this type of
accommodation, and (ii) the continuing demand for housing accommodation
in Westminster, but that it would be helpful, both to owners and
occupiers, and would also assist in securing uniformity of procedure, if a
Code of Practice were laid down for providing essential amenities in this