View report page

7
two rooms on a floor, a space of 100 square feet at the rear, the builder
was compelled to make only one room on a floor, whereby all the rooms
could then be said to be lighted and ventilated in front, consequently it
was not necessary to provide any space at the rear of this house. The
yard, therefore, which ought to be common to it and the next house, is
said to belong exclusively to No. 4.
Again, in Queen's Place, Whitechapel, two dwelling-houses of six
rooms in each, have been erected, with a space at the rear of only 50 feet
to each. It was obvious, in this case, that the buildings were not in
accordance with the requirements of the Building Act, and on a complaint
being made of the want of sufficient space at the rear of these houses, the
owner caused a door-way to be made in the party-wall, between these
houses. This arrangement was said to be legally sufficient to convert
these two houses into a single house, whereby the entire space at the rear,
which is 100 square feet, is all that the act requires.
Upon the same principle, half a dozen or more houses may be converted
into a single house, while the open space in the rear for lighting
and ventilating the back rooms may not exceed one foot in width, provided
that the building extends 100 feet.
In Inkhorn Court, three dwelling-houses, of six rooms each, have
recently been erected on a narrow slip of ground, where a warehouse
formerly stood. All the rooms are in front, having only the open space of
the Court (about 13 feet) for the purposes of light and ventilation. The
privy accommodation for these three houses, containing about 80 inhabitants,
consists of three exposed privies, situated at the so 1th end of
the Court, and adjoining one of the newly erected houses. They are
within 12 feet of the entrance-door and window of the house opposite.
The permission for erecting public privies in confined and populous Courts
is another defect of the Building Act. Every house ought to be provided
with a water-closet within the curtilage of the same.
The following case will further show how the provisions of the
Building Act have been evaded. The landlord of some old houses in a
Court in Spitalfields, thought it expedient to re-build and enlarge them;
but instead of pulling them down at once, as he ought to have done, he
first took down the front walls only, and re-built them. He then took down
the back walls, and re-built them. He subsequently took off the roof, and
re-placed it with a new one. By these proceedings he evaded the requirements
of the act relating to the structural arrangements of new houses;
besides which, he was enabled to "build 2 small rooms 6 feet only in height;
at the back of each house, without his being under the necessity of complying
with the 29th clause of the act, which relates to the providing of an
open space of 100 square feet for the purposes of light and ventilation.
The width of all Courts in which houses are to be built, should be
regulated by Act of Parliament. It appears that in old Courts, in which
perhaps a warehouse, stable, or shed has existed for a few years, the