View report page

68
above. He suggests, moreover, the erection of cottages on land at Tooting, adjoining the burial
ground, and at present under the control of the Baths and Cemetery Committee. The Lambeth
Borough Council adopted Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act in April, 1901.
Referring to the Borough of Wandsworth, Dr. Caldwell Smith states that after receiving reports
from the several medical officers of health who were formerly in the service of the W andsworth
District Board, and after considering other evidence, the Public Health Committee, of
the council reported that the borough was at present free from overcrowding, although
it is commencing in Clapham. In November, 1901, the committee further reported on
the subject, and stated that the question of overcrowding and high rents might arise
in the near future, and recommended the building of blocks of tenements similar to those erected
by the Guinness Trust. Three sites, one in Clapham, one in Wandsworth, and one in Putney,
were regarded as suitable for such buildings. Dr. Caldwell Smith adds that the council have
under consideration the reports of the architects as to sites in Rectory-grove, Clapham, and Hill syard,
Wandsworth. Dr. Sidney Davies, the medical officer of health of Woolwich, states that he
represented an area comprising Salutation-alley and 1 to 5, Beresford-street, containing 16 houses,
as a proper area to be dealt with under section 39 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, on
account of the bad arrangement and condition of the buildings and the want of light and ventilation.
He also reports that plans have been prepared for building 25 houses in North Woolwich,
and that a large scheme for building 1,000 houses at Eltham is at present in abeyance.
Conference with metropolitan borough councils.
On the 29th April a conference of representatives of the metropolitan borough councils,
convened by the Metropolitan Borough Council of Islington, was held at the Islington Town
Hall at which the following resolution was passed—
"That inasmuch as the adoption of Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act,
1890, by the metropolitan borough councils will lead to dual control and possibly to overlapping
expenditure, it is desirable that some arrangement should be come to with the London County
Council as to the respective spheres of action of the County Council on the One hand and the
borough councils on the other."
The Mayor of Islington was requested to communicate with the London County Council
with a view to effect being given to the resolution. A conference was accordingly held at the
County Hall on the 14th May at which members of the Housing of the Working Classes Committee
of the County Council and representatives of the metropolitan borough councils were
present. The following resolutions were passed, the members of the Housing of the Working
Classes Committee, according to usual practice, not voting—
(i.) That it is desirable, with a view to avoiding dual control and overlapping expenditure, that
no scheme for the housing of the working classes in any metropolitan borough should be promoted by
either the London County Council or the council of any metropolitan borough pursuant to Part III. of
the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, except after due consultation between the two councils
(a) as to the desirableness of the scheme, and (b) with a view to ascertaining whether the cost of such
scheme can be fairly apportioned between the county and the particular borough.
(ii.) That in order to ascertain the immediate responsibility or requirements of each borough
council, a simultaneous special inquiry be made by each council as to the number of the working class
that it may be necessary, by the conditions and circumstances of their employment, to house within the
area of each borough.
(iii.) That reasonable modifications of the existing building laws and regulations are essential in
order to facilitate the further erection of industrial buildings.
(iv.) That the conference do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed in the following autumn.
Upon these resolutions the Housing of the Working Classes Committee reported as
follows—
Following the method adopted in regard to resolutions passed at the various assessment
conferences which have been held from time to time by the Council, we have considered the above
resolutions with a view to ascertaining how far they should be acted upon by the Council.
With regard to resolution (i.) (a) we are of opinion that some consultation should take place
between two authorities having concurrent jurisdiction so that all danger of conflict may be avoided.
The negotiations, however, involved in the purchase of sites for the erection of working-class dwellings
under Part III. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, are of such a delicate nature that we think
the carrying on of consultations must be safeguarded in every possible way. Such consultations should
we think, be of an entirely private and confidential character, and it is our desire and intention to
arrange consultations of this kind whenever it is possible to do so. In fact, we may mention that a
consultation of this character has already taken place in at least one case with mutual advantage.
The second part of resolution (i.) as to the apportionment of the cost of building schemes between
borough councils and the County Council, however, is of quite a different character. We are advised
that there is no legal provision for any such apportionment as is suggested. Moreover, were we to say
that we agreed with its object, we should be committed to the approval of an alteration in the Council's
standing orders of doubtful expediency. All dwellings erected by the Council in the independent
exercise of the powers of Part III. of the Act are only sanctioned on a self-supporting basis, and we
are strongly of opinion that this principle should be maintained. The proposal in resolution (i.) (6)
from the County Council's point of view therefore does not appear to be necessary, and we cannot
recommend the Council to pledge itself to assist borough councils in building schemes which would
involve a contribution from the rates.
With regard to resolution (ii.) we are in communication with the several metropolitan borough
councils, and propose to report further when we shall have received their views.
Resolution (iii.) is one which raises a question of considerable executive importance, and would
involve an amendment of the London Building Acts. Before expressing any definite opinion upon it
we propose to have detailed reports from the Council's officers on the subject.
Resolution (iv.) merely provides for the continuance of the sitting of the conference. We are of
opinion that a further conference of this kind will do good, and we therefore propose to summon the
conference at a later date. We will report as to this after the summer recess.