View report page

67
scheme under the same Part of the same Act; in the former case the Owner
has no claim against the Local Authority for compensation, and in the latter
he has, because, in the former, the Authority can pass a Resolution to
demolish and can themselves demolish a building without acquiriug the
property, whereas in the latter the acquisition of the property must be part of
the scheme. The anomaly appears to be that, on the one hand, when the
Authority deals with houses individually, if they can obtain Closing Orders
from the Magistrates, they can demolish without paying any compensation for
the buildings; on the other hand, when the Authority deals with houses in
groups they do not require £o obtain Closing Orders from the Magistrates, but
must pay some kind of compensation for the buildings. Another anomaly
appears to be that a Medical Officer of Health must represent an individual
house as unfit for human habitation under Part II., but cannot represent a
group of houses or small area under Part II., but only under Part I., and then
only to the London County Council, not to the Metropolitan Borough Council.
Would it not be desirable to give to four or more householders the power
to complain to the Medical Officer of Health of a small group of houses as
well as of an individual house, and to give the Medical Officer of Health the
power of representing to the Metropolitan Borough Council a small group of
houses under Part II., as well as an individual house ? When a Local
Authority has decided to deal by scheme with a small group of houses under
Part II., either on representation or upon their own initiative under Section
39, should they not be enabled by the Local Government Board as soon
as that Board is satisfied of the desirability for a scheme, to close such houses
as may be considered unfit for human habitation, instead of waiting, may
be years, for the confirmation of the Scheme P
The cost of acquiring the land, and of acquiring and demolishing the
buildings for an improvement scheme under the Housing of the Working
Classes Act is not recouped, because the re-arrangement of the site reduces
the area of land available for building, and the restriction of the reduced
building-area to the purpose of erecting working-class dwellings reduces the
value of the land. The loss entailed by these great reductions in values
is due, firstly, to preventing the site from being used for any other purpose
than artizans' dwellings, and secondly, to preventing the area from
being so much covered by buildings as it might be if it were not
ear-marked for artizans' dwellings. The persons interested in the property
are not responsible for the imposition of either of these restrictions, and
it is difficult to understand how they could be made to pay for them.
It might, however, be considered whether, for the sake of clearness and
differentiation, a scheme of demolition should not be made separately from
but coincidently with a scheme of reconstruction for the same site. This
would enable the demolition scheme to be saddled with its own proper
costs, especially those of re-arranging the area, and laying it out anew for
building, and of restricting the building site to working-class dwellings.
And would enable a scheme of reconstruction to start unloaded by costs of
clearance. It might also be considered whether it would not be advisable to
keep a scheme of reconstruction and a scheme of additional construction
separate, whether forming part of a demolition scheme or not, as the circumstances
of reconstruction upon an existing site and of construction upon
additional lands vary. May not the inclusion of additional lands for additional