View report page

130
delay in dealing with particular areas, and it must be remembered that the London
County Council have the same difficulties as the Boroughs to deal with as regards
suitability of tenants, ability to pay rents and so forth, in addition to the claims
of the 28 Metropolitan Boroughs. To fully appreciate the magnitude of what
has been done, it is necessary to read the reports issued by the London County
Council as regards their housing schemes. In spite, however, of what has been
already accomplished, in a neighbouring Borough, seven of the ten areas represented
in 1919 have not yet been dealt with; as regards the celebrated Brady Street
area, in another neighbouring Borough, I am informed that "the question of
representing the Brady Street area was considered shortly after the passing of
the Housing Act, 1890, but was not then pursued as the London County Council
indicated that they would only consider one scheme from each Borough, and the
Boundary Street area was taken as the more urgent. The first representation
of the Brady Street area was made in 1904, and as nothing was done in the
matter, a further and extended representation was made in 1912. The building
operations under the scheme which was eventually adopted by the London County
Council appear to have begun about 1922, and are still proceeding." (March, 1931.)
In another neighbouring Borough the Medical Officer of Health, in his 1925
report, states: "The owner refused to reconstruct the demolished part of the
buildings and to put the property in habitable condition ' because of the result
of the Ministry of Health enquiry of 1920;' "also" The remaining houses in the
area are becoming worse because the owners refuse to spend money on property
which they believe will be demolished without compensation;"also" The local
enquiry by the Ministry of Health was held in October, 1920, but nothing has
been done with regard to clearing the area and rehousing, and this has not yet
begun."In the same Borough a Clearance Scheme for an area represented in
1925 in which the infantile mortality was 161, as compared with 74 for the
Borough, and which was estimated to cost £377,500, has not yet commenced. In
view of the difficulties already experienced in Hackney, as already mentioned in the
Dockway example, any action which may have the sole result of interfering with
sanitary inspection is to be deprecated, and what I have stated shows that there
is at least that possibility when areas are represented before it is agreed that
Clearance Schemes shall be put in hand.
The Housing Act, 1930, has altered the outlook with regard to Clearance
Schemes, and under this Act it is provided that in the Administrative County of
London the London County Council shall submit to the Ministry of Health
proposals for the provision of new houses and a quinquennial statement of the
measures proposed to be taken with regard to slum clearance and improvement
schemes.
Before submitting these proposals to the Minister the County Council is required
to consult with the several Metropolitan Borough Councils and include in the
statement submitted by the County Council the housing proposals of the Borough
Councils for the quinquennial period.
With regard to schemes for clearance areas the Borough Council must submit
its proposals to the County Council and ascertain that the County Council does not
itself propose to deal with the area, either separately or as part of a larger area, or
as part of an improvement area. For improvement areas containing less than ten
dwelling houses the Borough Councils are given the powers of the Act, but for
improvement areas affecting more than ten houses the County Council is exclusively
,the local authority, though much of the actual work involved in the scheme has to be
carried out by the Borough Council.
In April, 1928, I submitted to the Housing and Public Health Committees
of the Borough Council a survey report with regard to the housing conditions