View report page

53
dated and insanitary state as to be quite unfit for human
habitation, in their then conditions. All the yearly notices
served under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, have
been complied with, and the 11,832 defects (to which the
Notices refer) made good; whilst the yearly 32 houses condemned
under the Housing Acts, have been rendered fit for
human habitation (in few instances only being closed and
demolished).
Before leaving the subject of area condemnation, mention
may be made of the so-called unavoidable displacements connected
with railway extensions, improvement schemes, increase
of business premises (factories, workshops, etc.)—
such as are going on in the most northerly parts of the
Borough (Marsh Ward, etc.). The difficulties connected
with the displacement of persons is well exemplified, and
should prevent the Council from adding to such difficulties
by area condemnations under the Housing Acts.
In the oast, the late Vestry has done well to insist upon a
pro ratd amount of suitable accommodation in the neighbourhood
being provided before any unavoidable displacement
of persons is allowed to take place, and that the displaced
tenants should have the first refusal of the new
rooms which are to be let at (or about) the same rents as
the old ones. This is a counsel of perfection—somewhat
difficult to accomplish in practice, and one that has not been
carried out in London in the past.
In conclusion, I may be allowed to remind the Council
that they now, by the Amendment Housing Act, 1900, have
powers, concurrently with the London County Council, to
adopt and carry out Part III. of the Housing Act, 1890
(workmen's dwellings or lodging houses) outside their district,
as well as inside.
Joseph Priestley.
January 22nd, 1906.