View report page

52
Stepney.— Dr. Thomas describes the Back.church.lane area, which he represented to the
the Council in 1903 (see page 48), and states that on the Council declining to make a scheme
for its improvement, sanitary notices were served for the improvement of the houses. He writes—
The procedure under the Act must to a certain extent be made public. This gives opportunity to
certain shrewd house speculators to buy the property, raise the rents, and by the time the local authority is
ready to negotiate for its purchase the property is very much enhanced in value. This took place in the
Back.church.lane area, but as the London County Council ultimately refused to proceed with the
scheme, the speculators must have made a bad investment, especially as they were immediately called
upon to carry out extensive sanitary repairs. If it had been proceeded with, this speculation
would have rendered the property more expensive to purchase.
With reference to the sufficiency of house accommodation in Stepney, he states that
"the house famine in the borough two years ago forced up the rents abnormally high. Thia
was one, if not the most important factor in the causation of overcrowding. For some reasons,
there is, at the present time, plenty of house accommodation in the district. There are, of course,
more empty houses in some parts than in others. One reason is the number of new houses
that were built during the year, which included a number of large blocks of model buildings. A
large number of these dwellings have been constructed during recent years. This is, however,
far from being responsible for so many of the empty houses. Among the number of dwellings
completed during the year was Mann's.buildings, which were erected in the insanitary area cleared
by the late Limehouse District Board of Works, and known as Queen Catherine.court area."
Poplar.— Proceedings were instituted by the County Council under the Building Act for
dealing with Arnolds.buildings as a dilapidated and neglected structure. The hearing of the
summonses was adjourned by the magistrate with a view to opportunity being given for the
repair of the premises. These premises had been included in an area represented under Part I.
of the Act, for which the County Council were not prepared to make a scheme. Closing orders
under Part II. were obtained for seven houses in Prospect.place and Eagle.place, King.street,
which had also been included in a representation under Part II., and the courts were boarded up.
Southwark.— Dr. Millson gives particulars as to the Park.street area represented by him
under Part I. of the Act (see page 48).
Wandsworth.— The Housing Sub.Committee reported on proposals to erect houses on
certain plots of land, some belonging to the borough council. It was not deemed practicable to
utilise these sites for this purpose, but a proposal was adopted "to take a house in a populous and
poor neighbourhood and fit slipper baths in most of the rooms, the use of which might be obtained
at a very moderate cost."
Lewisham.— Dr. Harris includes in his report particulars of a number of houses represented
by him under Part II. of the Act, and of the results obtained, as well as an estimate of the
number of dwellings in the borough and its divisions let at weekly rentals varying from 4s.
to 13s. Of these there were in all 9,896.
Woolwich.— The borough council's 25 new houses at North Woolwich were completed, and
all but one occupied.