View report page

21
In connection with the former object it was decided to provide "a creche and resting and
warming rooms for the poor people," and a site for such buildings has since been acquired. With
regard to the request made to the Council, the Housing of the Working Classes Committee replied
stating, inter alia, that "so far from requiring the aid of the Council the Vestry possess ample powers
under section 94 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, for dealing with the evils existing in
connection with the houses in the area." Further communications were addressed to the Council on
the subject, but the Council's committee declined to advise the Council to acquire the houses.
Since the commencement of my enquiry an additional inspector has been appointed by the
Vestry. This inspector will relieve Mr. Pettit, the chief inspector, of his duties as inspector of the southeastern
district, and enable him to devote his time to the work which devolves upon a chief inspector.
The opinion I have formed as the result of my enquiry is that, had the recommendations made
from time to time since 1889 by Dr. Dudfield with regard to increasing the sanitary staff been acted
upon, the West-end Avernus would never have attained the notoriety which it has done, and what is
more important, the standard of fitness for occupation of many hundreds of working class dwellings in
Kensington would have been improved to an extent that would have had material influence upon health
conditions in the parish. Looking at the matter merely from the point of view of expense, it
cannot be doubted, having regard to the evidence adduced as to sickness and to the remarkably
high death rate in the "special area," and having also in view the fact that there are a number of
streets in other parts of Kensington in which conditions obtain which are little better than those
in the "special area," that the monetary cost to the parish resulting from allowing these conditions
to remain, has been far larger than would have been incurred had the staff been increased in
accordance with the medical officer of health's recommendations.
As regards the suggestion which has been made that the houses let in furnished apartments in
the special area should be dealt with as common lodging-houses, there is no doubt that so far as these
particular houses are concerned great benefit would result from the adoption of such a course. This,
however, would involve an alteration in the definition of a common lodging house and the alteration
would affect the administration in relation to such houses in all parts of London. It is not obvious that
Parliament would assent to this course in the absence of the special conditions of common lodging
houses, the living in common by persons who are not members of the same family.
But it should be borne in mind that the question is mainly one of sufficiency of inspection, and
not one of statutory powers. The Council's inspector does his work under Acts of 1851 and 1853, but
he visits the common lodging-houses four times a month. The Vestry's inspector does his work, so far
as he has opportunity, under the Act of 1891 and the by-laws confirmed in 1886, but he finds it
"impossible to make a single thorough inspection of each of these tenements" (those in houses let in
lodgings) "in the course of a year."†
The proposal to acquire the houses in the special area under Part III. of the Housing Act has
been made. In favour of this proposal it has been urged that larger powers of control are necessary,
but the question is, as I have said, one not so much of additional statutory powers as of the enforcement
of existing powers. In connection with this matter it may be pointed out that the cost of acquiring
the property compulsorily would of course be enhanced in proportion to the rentals obtained, indeed,
it is a question for serious consideration whether the purchase of property of this kind by a public
authority under part III. of the Housing Act, would not tend to encourage the growth in other parts
of London of the very evils which it is desired to remedy in Kensington.
There are at the present time, in Kensington, a chief and six district inspectors, and a lady
inspector of workplaces at which women are employed. In addition to these officers there are
others who do not belong to the health department, but who discharge functions which to some
extent relieve the work of the sanitary inspectors. Thus there are two "street inspectors" whose
main duty is to inspect mews with a view to seeing that they are properly scavenged; they also
deal with obstructions in the streets and with disorderly houses, and they collect samples for analysis
under the Food and Drugs Act. This last-named duty is in many London districts performed by the
sanitary inspectors. Again, the work of supervising underground drainage construction is carried
out by a chief inspector and three assistants, who belong not to the public health, but to the
surveyor's department. The carrying out of the provisions of the Public Health Act relating
to unsound food and to smoke nuisance devolves on the sanitary inspectors, who, however, under
existing arrangements, are unable to devote sufficient attention to these matters.
It appears desirable, in the first instance, to state to what extent the existing staff is undermanned,
having regard only to the duties which now devolve upon the public health department.
If workshops are to be separately dealt with, it is clear that two additional inspectors would
be required; one to deal with workshops in which women are employed and the other with workshops
in which men are employed. If such an arrangement were made a woman should be
appointed for the former duty, and there would then be in Kensington two women and one man
engaged in workshop inspection. While, however, there can be no question as to the urgent desirability
of making the former appointment, it is open to question whether the duty of inspecting
workshops in which men only are employed, should devolve upon an inspector specially appointed
for the purpose, or whether it should be carried out by each individual district sanitary inspector,
assuming, of course, that the fact of such added duty would be borne in mind in regulating the size
of the several sanitary inspectors' districts.
* The special committee of 1896 reported that the evils described as existing in Notting Dale are "spreading,
and the character of several neighbouring streets is rapidly deteriorating. This opinion is in agreement
with my own experience of the neighbourhood; moreover there are other groups of streets, particularly in the
"northern sanitary district" of Kensington, in which conditions of a like character exist.
† In his annual report for 1896, Dr. Dudfield contrasts the amount of attention bestowed during that year
upon the houses in the "Special area." He says "Of the 275 houses, 23 are common lodging-houses under the
administration of the County Council, each such house being inspected at least once a week; of the remaining
252 houses, 159 were inspected once, 46 twice, 18 thrice, 14 four times, 1 house five times, and 1 house six times.