View report page

128
On various occasions I have reported housing property that was causing
difficulty to the Council, and in 1921 I gave a list of property in the Borough that
was a cause of constant anxiety, and then stated: "Owing to the age of the
houses, neglect during the War, and the cost of carrying out repairs, much of
the housing property in the Borough cannot recompense the owners for extensive
reconstruction."
Action necessitating "reconstruction" under the Housing Acts has been
avoided during the past 10 years, as an owner who could show that reconstruction
was necessitated by a notice served under those Acts could close the premises.
There is no legal definition of "reconstruction," each case requiring consideration
on its merits, and in conjunction not only with the amount of work required,
but also with the kind of property and the rent paid; notices therefore have been
served in preference under the Public Health (London) Act, and work, when
done by the Council, carried out after obtaining a Magistrate's Order. This
procedure has, naturally, been resented by owners who wished to close property,
and where proceedings have been taken in Court to enforce notices, the Magistrate
has been requested by the owners to close; in one such instance—the Dockway
property—the Magistrate inspected the houses as the result of the evidence placed
before him by the owners, who were represented by Counsel, and called expert
witnesses, with a view to proving the desirability of closing, but the Magistrate
refused to make a Closing Order and the notices were complied with. It has
always been the object of the Public Health Department to oppose the lessening
in any way of the housing accommodation available in the Borough, but it is
obvious that this line of action is dangerous for the department, giving opportunity
for attacks by persons who do not realise the difficulty of dealing with this type
of housing property, while the "representing" of an area or "closing" of
property places the responsibility elsewhere. On the other hand, to "represent"
an area before there is reasonable assurance that Clearance or Improvement Schemes
will follow means that there will be considerable additional difficulty in enforcing
the abatement of nuisances under the Public Health (London) Act.
Closing and demolition used to be a way out of the difficulties experienced
by sanitary authorities in dealing with this class of property. Thus, in a report
by Dr. King Warry, to which I have referred, he states that 36 houses to which
his attention was drawn were inspected, closed and demolished that year to make
room for the erection of a factory. A considerable amount of housing property
has been bought in this Borough for demolition for industrial purposes and will
be demolished just as soon as the opportunity arises. "Closing" is no longer
practicable, it has become only a procedure of despair, or because of danger of
accident from the condition of a dwelling. There are in various parts of the
Borough blocks of houses, as in Middlesex Place and Milborne Street, that have
been bought for demolition and the erection of factories on the site. Naturally,
the Public Health Department do not wish any action that will raise any question
of "reconstruction" and consequent closing and demolition.
The present housing scheme costs the rates a large annual sum, and in spite
of past expenditure on these premises and the repairs now in hand, it can be
confidently stated that more and more work will require to be done from year
to year, particularly as regards the "conversions," which are ordinary dwelling
houses, purchased lay the Council, converted into flats and put into thorough
repair; as regards most of these conversions nothing that can be done will render
the property anything but expensive to the Council and a source of complaint;
and this fact emphasizes the difficulties experienced in sanitary inspection of a
considerable part of the Borough. Private owners of worn-out property cannot
afford the continual repairs required by property of this type, often sub-let to
more families than the properties can reasonably accommodate. On the other
hand, if the Council carry out the work as it should be done, it is obvious that
in a great majority of cases it will be impossible to get back the cost of the work.