View report page

32
The Tewkesbury estate has for a very long time presented a
problem of special character. Many of the houses have outlived
their useful life and keeping them habitable has not, and is not,
easy. Occupiers have shown great restraint, and are to be commended
on the spirit in which they have accepted the difficulties of
the Council.
Public Health Act, 1936.
In the paragraph of my report dealing with Section 11, Housing
Act, 1936, I stress the warnings given in previous annual reports.
In many cases where action is contemplated under the nuisance
sections of the Public Health Act, very careful consideration must
be given to all the factors concerned.
I have indicated in earlier reports the difficulty in preparing
even minimum specifications under this Act, a recent case taken
to Court by the Council gives point to this statement.
Nuisance notices were served in respect of two houses and the
owner had to be taken to court. The defence pleaded and quoted
the Rolls v. Salisbury Corporation case, that the houses were not
worth spending any money on them. The magistrates adjourned
the case for six months and suggested that the two parties try to
reach agreement.
The outcome of this case is that action will now be taken under
Section 11 of the Housing Act, 1936, so that demolition orders may
be made.
Procedure for dealing with houses under the Public Health Act
is slower and no action can be taken by the local authority to carry
out work in default until a magistrate's court has made an order.
Public Health Act, 1936, Part III: Prosecutions.
Legal proceedings were taken in seven cases where owners or
occupiers failed to comply with abatement notices, with the following
results, namely:—