View report page

20
re-arrangement of the districts of the sanitary inspectors to be made. It was decided to convert the
seven existing districts into six, and to accomplish this, three of the inspectors' districts in North
Kensington were to be converted into two.* Under this arrangement the north-west B
division, which included within it the "special area," was considerably extended, and the enlarged
area, known now as the north-west district, was allotted to a single inspector.
In March, 1896, a special committee was appointed to consider the reports of the medical
officer relating to this north-west B division, and to report "whether any steps can be taken by the
Vestry, either singly or in conjunction with some other authority, to effect an improvement in the
conditions at present prevailing in the district in question."
The Committee made a number of valuable suggestions with regard to matters of detail,
some of which have since been carried out.† With regard to the main problem they expressed the
opinion that houses let out as "furnished apartments" should" be brought under control and
registered as common lodging-houses." The duty of exercising supervision over these houses would
then, of course, devolve upon the London County Council.‡ As regards "sanitary inspection" the
Committee were of opinion "that the necessity of this can hardly be overstated," but they added,
"this does not necessarily mean an increase to our permanent staff of sanitary inspectors."
On receiving the report of the special committee, it was decided by the Vestry to alter existing
arrangements so that the north-west B district (containing the "special area") should be reconstituted
and allotted to one inspector. This restoration to the north-west B division of the measure of attention
(save as regards enquiries as to infectious disease; see footnote to this paragraph), which had been previously
devoted to it, was to be effected, not by increasing the staff of inspectors, but at the expense of the
other parts of Kensington. The inspector in charge of the central district of Kensington was
to cover a large additional area to the north of Notting-hill High-street and Holland-park-avenue, and
what was then left of the original north-west A and north-east districts was to constitute a new
north-east district under the charge of a single inspector.§
The proposals of the Vestry had been criticised adversely by both the Local Government Board
and the London County Council. The Board had urged the Vestry to reconsider their proposal, pointing
out that "the population of four out of the six proposed districts" (exceeding 30,000 in each district)
"would be in excess of the average population of the districts of sanitary inspectors in the
metropolis." The Council had asked in May, 1896, whether the Vestry could furnish for
their information "any recent report of its medical officer on the subject of the adequacy of
the Vestry's 6taff, and if not, whether they would instruct their medical officer to report
on the question." The Vestry, in reply, referred to the fact that a special committee
had been appointed in March, 1896, and on July 22nd the Vestry forwarded a copy of the report of
this committee. The Public Health Committee of the Council thereupon asked, in July, 1896, that
facilities might be afforded to one of their assistant medical officers in order that he might make inquiry
as to the sufficiency of the Vestry's staff of sanitary inspectors. This inquiry did not, however, then
take place, as, after further correspondence, it transpired in January, 1897, that the Local Government
Board had assented to the reduction in the number of male inspectors from seven to six for a period of
twelve months on trial, but desired to be informed at the end of that period as to how the arrangement
worked.
In February, 1898, the Board wrote requesting that the "special report" required by their
letter of 28th January, 1897, might be forwarded. The Vestry, without consulting their medical
officer, replied that the arrangement had proved satisfactory. In May the Board were asked to
sanction the appointment of Mr. Pettit (who was still to continue to act as one of the Vestry's district
inspectors) as chief sanitary inspector, and the Board, in replying, stated that they had "decided to
hold an enquiry into the details of sanitaryadministration in the parish, but as, owing to the engagements
of their staff, they could not hope that the enquiry would be held for some little time, they would not
withhold their assent to the assignment of the additional duties to Mr. Pettit as an experiment."
In May, 1899, I was instructed to make inquiry concerning the "special area," and in June I
was instructed to continue my inspection throughout the rest of the parish.
It remains to add, in regard to the history of events in connection with this matter, that in
1897 it was decided by a special committee of the Vestry that it was desirable to commemorate the
Queen's Jubilee by "the promotion of a scheme, having for its object the amelioration of the condition
of the inhabitants" of the special area. The Vestry, moreover, resolved in 1897 to request the County
Council to acquire the houses in the special area, under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes
Act, 1890, for utilisation as lodging-houses. ||
* "The rearrangement was effected by consolidating the north-east district and the two divisions (A and
B) of the north-west district, so as to make two districts, since known as north-east and north-west."—(Annual
Report, 1896, page 111.)
† These suggestions are printed in extenso on pages 5 and 6 of the Special Committee's report, and are
also referred to on pages 146 and 147 of Dr. Dudfield's Annual Report for 1896. An account of the improvements
actually carried out is given on page 144 of the Annual Report for 1897.
‡ The Vestry asked the Council to define the meaning of the term common lodging-house. The Council's
reply of October, 1896, is given in extenso by Dudfield on p. 143 of his annual report for 1896, and he adds the
observation, " It is manifest that the houses in the Notting Dale special area cannot, under the provisions of the
existing law, be dealt with as common lodging-houses."
§ The increase in the area of the central district was accompanied by a transference of duties in connection
with enquiries into cases of infectious diseases all over the parish, from the inspector of that district, to the
sanitary inspectors, each in their respective districts. This then was the scheme for obtaining an increased
amount of sanitary inspection without "an increase to the permanent staff of sanitary inspectors." It may be
noted moreover taat "in July the sanitary committee having ordered the issue of 220 notices" in respect of
houses in Notting Dale, it was proposed to appoint two additional inspectors for one month, to assist in
supervising the execution of the required works, but the proposal was negatived by the committee." (p 145
Annual Report for 1897.)
|| Dr. Dudfield had, in the first instance, proposed the "acquirement of a number of the houses to be
utilised as lodging houses, so as to increase the body of respectacle inhabitants already located in the district."
In his annual report for 1897, page 143, he writes—" The ultimate cost of such a scheme would have been small,
as the houses pay their owners very well indeed."