View report page

28
Temporary Dwellings.
Week-end bungalows came within our coincidental review but
they have been excluded from our findings because, although week-end
bungalows represent a feature notably of the Rainham part of our
area, as a problem they tend towards self-solution by their disappearance
when a modern dwelling is built on the site and the temporary building
ceases—so far as human habitation is concerned—to remain a source of
anxiety. It is difficult to determine accurately how many of these
premises are occupied at any one time, although it is probably a fair
statement that most of them are owner-occupied.
The Unfit House.
The houses deemed to be unfit were analysed in the light of
Section 9, sub-Section 1 of the above Act which states the exact
classification of the houses inspected was broadly defined as follows :
Class 1. Houses so seriously unfit as to demand action to secure
their demolition within 5 years.
Class 2. Houses lacking modern amenities and with defects but
not requiring the urgent radical treatment of Class 1.
(It is suggested that Class 2 properties be kept under
continuous review which may well result in some instances
in their being found suitable for transfer to Class 1 within
a few years.)
Class 3. Houses lacking modern amentiies and probably not suitable
for Improvement Grant but otherwise thought to be
reasonably sound. These should be specifically reviewed
at no later period than the end of 5 years.
Class 4. Houses of a type lacking modern amenities but probably
suitable for consideration as improvement prospects.
Class 5. Sound houses with modern amenities.
The average Class 1 house consisted of a living room, two small
bedrooms, badly planned with outdoor sanitation, no bathroom, no
constant hot water supply and showing unfitness as noted in the earlier
definition. Some tenants had considerably improved their position by
installing cooking facilities.
It will be noted that I have limited my subsequent detailed
numerical analysis to houses falling within the first two classes. This
does not imply that no action need be taken on certain houses outwith
these classes but that in, for example, the question of Improvement
Grants, the initiative would appear to rest with the owner, although of
course the existence of these Grants is a matter which merits publicity
and our advice is always available to assist in arriving at any decision
as to whether such a Grant should be initiated or should be agreed.
Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 has laid
down the. procedure to be adopted in regard to certain properties of
architectural merit, and naturally enough this has its repercussions on
certain of the properties included in my first two classes. Since, however,
I am concerned basically with the fitness of houses for human
habitation, the question as to whether antiquity or archaeological claims
justify continued existence is not a matter with which I would be
primarily concerned so long as continued use as human habitation would
not inevitably follow retention.