View report page

30
hand, renders it impossible to carry out the work at a reasonable
cost—an essential requirement for action under Section 9, Housing
Act, 1936.
During 1948 Demolition Orders were made with respect to the
following 30 premises, namely:—
White Cottage, Brunswick Road;
29, Cranleigh Road;
*33, The Hale;
*35, ,, ,,
*37, „ ,,
*39, ,, ,,
*41, ,, „
55, ,, „
57, ,, ,,
8a, Lawrence Road;
48, Pretoria Road;
49, ,, „
50, ,, „
1, Tewkesbury Road;
3, Tewkesbury Road;
5, ,, „
7, ,, „
11, ,, „
11!
13, ,, ,,
15, ,, „
21, ,, ,,
23, ,, ,,
25, ,, „
27, ,, ,,
29, ,, „
5, Union Row;
6, ,, „
7,,, „
8, ,, „
Note.—*An Appeal was made against these Orders, which was allowed on
the owners' undertaking that the premises would not be used for
human habitation and that they would take steps to remove the
existing tenants.
A Demolition Order made in 1946 in respect of 86, High Cross
Road was quashed by the Court. The judgment was somewhat
complicated and the Judge reached his decision because, although
he was satisfied that the premises were not capable of being rendered
fit at reasonable expense as a single dwelling unit, he found that it
was open for him to consider whether the premises could be said to
be ' 'capable of being rendered fit at reasonable expense'' by being
converted into flats. He found that the refusal of the Ministry of
Health in connection with the licence was irrelevant to the case
before him because the question is not "can the house be rendered
fit ?", but "is it capable of being rendered fit ?" The owner wished
to be allowed to give an undertaking to carry out the conversions in
question but the Judge held that for technical reasons he had no
power to accept an undertaking at the hearing of the Appeal. The
premises have now been reconditioned and converted into three
flats.