View report page

60
Kensington—Attention is directed to the condition of the James-street area which, it was
hoped, would have been completed under a private Act. Dr. Dudfield states that James-street
is in a woe-begone condition, many of the houses have been pulled down and few of the old
inhabitants remain. The time allowed for the compulsory purchases of properties required for
the improvement expired in August, 1899, and for the completion of the scheme expires in
August, 1901.
Fulham—“The surveyor has prepared a list of vacant lands in Fulliam, embracing some
190 acres which are available, but it is found that the price of land in the borough, which
probably could not be bought under £2,500 an acre and the increased cost of building would
preclude the erection of houses which would return the interest on the capital borrowed, if let at
the rents they should be if they are to benefit those for whom they are intended, i.e., about 2s., or at
the most 2s. 6d. per week a room.”
Westminster—The medical officer of health and surveyor reported on various areas "most
likely to come within the meaning of the Housing of the Working Classes Act," and pointed to
William-place in Tufton-street, York-buildings in Grubb-street, and Blue Anchor-court in
Great Peter-street; of these, York-buildings is in the area which will be acquired by the County
Council under the Embankment Improvement Scheme. Attention was also directed to Lionbuildings
with a view to the vestry, at some future time, entering into negotiations with the
owners for the purchase thereof and erecting upon the site more suitable dwellings. The officers
did not see their way to dealing with any of these areas under the Housing of the Working
Classes Act.
St. Pancras- As the result of a decision of the Home Secretary in 1893, on a representation
of the medical officer of health, it devolved upon the St. Pancras Vestry to improve certain
areas under the Housing of the Working Classes Act. Mr. Sykes gives the following information
as to the steps taken—The area, including Christopher-place and to the west of Chaltonstreet
and north of Drummond-street, was to be dealt with by the vestry without contribution
from the Council. The vestry in 1893 served " notices on the owners of the individual houses
to abate nuisances and execute such works and do such things as might be necessary, and did not
direct any scheme for demolition and reconstruction to be prepared. “With respect to the area
lying to the east of Chalton-street, to the cost of which the Council contributes one-third, the
vestry prepared two schemes—(a) for Eastnor-place, and (b) for Chapel-grove. The Local
Government Board held an inquiry in 1899 as to these schemes, and, inasmuch, as it was decided
to modify the Chapel-grove scheme by the compulsory purchase of three houses in Chapelstreet
not in the scheme, service of notices and a further inquiry by the Local
Government Board as to theise three houses became necessary. Concerning Prospectterrace
area and Brantome-place area, to the cost of which the Council contributes
one half, schemes were prepared in 189G, and an enquiry was held by the Local Government
Board in 1897. Dr. Sykes reports that the Board required the vestry to “provide additional land
for rehousing in order that at least 800 persons of the 1,300 to be displaced from the two sites
should be rehoused in new buildings," and in 1898 stated that the vestry must agree to the purchase
of additional land before the Board would make an order sanctioning the schemes with
the necessary modifications. The London County Council considered that the Local Government
Board have no power to add additional land to a scheme under Part II., and declined
to contribute to the additional cost. The vestry communicated with the Home Secretary on
the 22nd September, 1900, as to the interpretation of his award, and received a reply that provisions
as to rehousing are an integral part of the scheme to which the London County Council
can be required to contribute. The County Council have been informed that the Borough
Council will prefer a claim when the proper time arrives. Instructions have been given to
prepare the necessary plans, estimates, and details to be forwarded to the Local Government
Board to add to the schemes before confirmation.
Hackney—The medical officer of health states that in 1900 he represented, under Part I.
of the Act, an area in the neighbourhood of Duncan-road. The total number of premises concerned
is 71.
Dr. Warry also states that he represented, under Part II. of the Act, 36 houses in Tyssenplace,
Tyssen-passage, and Tyssen-street, Dalston-lane, and that in May closing orders were
made. “Since that date the houses have been demolished to make room for the erection of a
factory.”
St. Martin-in-the-Fields—Dr. Skegg reported on the condition of Turner's-court on the east
side of St. Martin's-lane, of which he gives account.
Strand—Dr. Allan states that overcrowding of existing houses has resulted from the displacement
of 1,200 persons in the district, and that he has been informed that none of the persons
displaced in the Strand district have become tenants of the buildings erected at Millbank.
St. Luke—Dr. Yarrow gives statistics of the four areas which the Council resolved to
improve, viz., Garden-row, 69 houses, population 407; Roby-street, 50 dwellings, population 218;
Baltic-street, 55 buildings, population 351; and Honduras-street, 17 houses, population 217. He
also gives particulars of six smaller areas, viz., Bedford-square, 14 houses, population 166;
Tilnev-court, 9 houses, population 37; Young's-buildings with 86 and 90 Old-street and 189 to
209 Whitecross-street, 20 houses, population 95; Central-street, including 2 to 36 Central-street,
Whitby-court, 81 and 83 Old-street, and 2 and 4 Mitchell-street, 25 houses, population 125; 13 to
38 Bastwick-street, 26 houses, population 275; Ludlow-street, 14 houses, which with houses in
Gee-street hold a population of 161 persons.
Poplar—The medical officer of health states that in 1900 he represented to the Council
two areas—(1) Providence-place area, with 67 dwelling-houses and a population of 411 persons;
(2) King-street area, with 10 dwelling-houses and a population of 49 persons.