View report page

67
date of the last Survey report the appearance of large parts of the Borough has
been completely altered as a result of this process. Possibly in the working-class
parts of the district, the areas which have been described in earlier reports as the
"tenement house areas"—in Lisson Grove, in the east-end behind Tottenham
Court Road and Oxford Street—the progress has been slower. Even there, however,
private individuals as well as otlicial bodies have been at work, have acquired
blocks and groups of tenement houses of a poor type, have demolished them in
such a way as to cause as little hardship as possible to the occupiers, who in the
main have been unable or unwilling to leave the neighbourhood, and have erected
blocks of dwellings in their stead. The numbers of such dwellings at the moment
is not large, but if it is recognised that it has all, or mostly, been done in the
interval between the last Survey report in 1925 and in the face of great difficulties,
the chief of which is the finding of alternative accommodation, it is something of
an achievement. The blocks mostly in mind are those provided by the Council on
the Fisherton Street site, which comprise 130 tenements, and those erected by the
St. Marvlebone Housing Association in Salisbury Street and Exeter Street, containing
45 tenements.
In both these instances it is only, or mainly, of course, persons formerly
residing on the sites who have been accommodated, so that they cannot be regarded
as having contributed to the solution of the housing problem in the Borough. What
has been done, however, has been to reduce the number of dwellings, defective in
greater or less degree and mostly overcrowded. Very little more than this will
in fact result from any housing activities in the Borough. Even the Carlisle Street
Improvement Scheme, which at the end of 1930 was beginning to take shape to the
extent that demolitions were beginning in North Street and Richmond Street, will
do no more than this, and it, like any other scheme of improvement by the Borough
or County Council, will only be possible to carry out rf accommodation can be secured
for the dishoused outside the Borough. Because the number of tenement houses
demolished for these various schemes is so small, there has been comparatively
little effect on overcrowding, which is the chief nuisance, apart from verminous
conditions, general dirtiness and minor states of disrepair arising largely because
the premises are to an extent worn out and have been misused and abused. The
list on page 14, which sets out the nuisances detected by each of the inspectors,
gives some idea of the nature of the defects existing. Even in the worst areas
indeed many of the houses call for treatment only because they are old, though
numbers of course are and have been for some time badly treated and many, if in
different surroundings, would be still quite fit for habitation.
To some extent what has been said already covers the query as to sufficiency of
supply of houses at this point, but otherwise I cannot do better than repeat what I
wrote in the last survey report, when I pointed out that the Borough shared in the
general shortage of houses in London. I indicated also that there had for many
years been a shortage, that this had been met by dividing the existing houses in
certain districts into two or more tenements, and that though this may have given
more dwellings it had led to considerable overcrowding in various parts, not only
of houses, but of space. Attempting to put this into figures, I stated that in the
tenement house districts the number of tenements containing at least one more
person than the standard of two per room was 1,894. That there has been any
measurable progress in the direction of meeting the shortage I do not believe.
Conceivably there may be more dwellings, since the proportion of houses subdivided
to accommodate two or more families has increased, more and more
individuals finding it impossible, for one reason or another, to retain a whole house
for their separate occupation, but at the same time there has been an increase in the
numbers requiring separate dwellings. To meet neither of these increases has anything
been done locally. The provision made by the London County Council may
have helped, but could only have done so in a very minor degree. So far as the
Borough Council is concerned, their activities in connection with the housing
scheme on the Fisherton Street, since it involved clearance must have made matters
worse. The only conclusion possible is, and this is borne out by experience, that
accommodation has been found by further subdivision of existing houses. That
this has objections from points of view other than the sanitary is well recognised.