View report page

25
ness, the whole of the included houses representing a wide range in unhealthy conditions.
On a moderate computation, not more than one fourth of the living rooms
in an insanitary area are so grossly insanitary as the worst type of basement dwellings
in London. If the worst basement dwellings are selected for clearance, one hundred
per cent. of utterly insanitary rooms, quite unfit for human habitation, will, in
consequence, pass out of use. Never is this so in the case of improvement schemes
under which insanitary areas are cleared.
Closure of basement rooms, while thus securing 100 per cent. removal of the
worst insanitary conditions in housing, is far less costly, either to the public or to
the private owner, than clearance of insanitary areas. The displaced persons would
certainly have to be provided for by additional housing accommodation, as in the
case under an improvement scheme but, in so far as worse conditions are removed by
this method and at a materially less cost, it does appear desirable that until the worst
of the basement dwellings have been closed, procedure by this method should take
precedence if necessary of clearance by improvement scheme. But in order that full
advantage should be taken of this method of sanitary improvement in housing conditions,
the necessary statutory powers should be obtained.
In actual practice it is certain, whether the statutory obligations exist or not,
that closure of insanitary underground dwellings would not be possible except where
alternative accommodation was provided.
The urgency of removing these worst insanitary dwellings by powers, such as
those suggested, does not appear to have been appreciated by many of the authorities
consulted, but it is scarcely credible that there could be any difference of opinion as
to the need for dealing first with what must be recognised as the worst form of
insanitary dwelling, the dark, damp, underground room where women and children
spend their days.
Dealing with this matter in connection with Thames floods and basement rooms
in June, 1928,I reported as follows to the Public Health Committee:—
"The basement rooms which sanitarily speaking are most objectionable
are not those used merely as sleeping places, but those which are occupied
mainly by women and children who spend the daylight hours in rooms
which perforce are lighted by artificial means.
"Quite frequently in basement kitchens artificial lighting during the
daytime is continuously necessary and in operation. Such rooms are
notoriously not only dark but damp and ill-ventilated and no combination
of conditions so injurious to health is to be found in domestic dwellings
comparable with that which exists in underground rooms of this kind.
"Where such rooms so far fail to comply with statutory requirements as
to be unfit for human habitation—as is extensively the case in many of the
low-lying areas—they should be dealt with by closing order. Unfortunately, it
does not appear that there are statutory powers to close only part of a house."
So far as the relative cost of dealing with suitably selected underground dwellings
by closure, or, alternatively, of dealing with insanitary areas by improvement
schemes is concerned, it will readily be seen that procedure by closure is much less
costly.
There are about 30,000 basement dwellings in London, which are considered
unfit for human occupation. Not all of these are separately occupied and are housing
some 100,000 persons.
In closing these unhealthy dwellings no cost of acquisition is entailed and, so far
as the owners are concerned, their loss is less than when the whole of the property is
demolished under an improvement scheme. Action on the lines suggested is, of
course, without prejudice to action in respect of insanitary areas by improvement
schemes. In a proper perspective, however, it will be seen to be more urgent and
more fruitful in results than the more costly procedure.