View report page

90
It would appear that it has never occurred to the Property Owners' Protection
Association that it is as much the duty of owners of houses to keep them habitable as
it is the duty of butchers to purvey sound meat.
With regard to the statement, "Two great obstacles exist to any adequate
reform'' made in their letter quoted earlier in my Report—
(a) The Rent Restrictions Acts—No mention is made of the principal objections
of owners to these Acts—
(i) that they protected from eviction the tenant who complained to the
local authority of dampness, or a leaky roof, or any nuisance whatever; and
(ii) that they have been used successfully to persuade members of the
Property Owners' Protection Association to put their premises into a habitable
condition.
A Rent Restrictions Certificate is in effect a continuing penalty which operates
until the necessary work is done.
As regards (b), the second "obstacle" described above, it is interesting to note
that it is impossible under the 1936 Housing Act, and it was also impossible under
the 1930 Housing Act, to regard a house in good condition and decent repair as being
in a clearance area. Such a house must be considered as being outside the area.
If the area is wanted for a re-housing scheme, full market value for such a house
must be paid. But this has not lessened the opposition of the Property Owners'
Protection Association to slum clearance. All "alleged unhealthy" or clearance
areas are apparently healthy and satisfactory to the Association. One is forced to
the conclusion that, in the opinion of the Association, there is no such thing as an
unsound house unless it has reached a state where the structure is dangerous.
The Property Owners' Protection Association endeavour by every means to
implant in the minds of the public the idea that local authorities are bringing ' 'many
innocent persons to ruin" and, with some success apparently, since in their Prospectus
it is claimed that the Association ' 'in the furtherance of its objectives, at all times
invokes the aegis of the Public Press to ventilate the grievances and hardships of
owners, and thanks to Press support much good is effected." In other words, it can
reasonably be deduced that the Property Owners' Protection Association hope with
the help of the Press to protect as many of the remaining slums and unhealthy
dwellings as possible. Anyone who is in doubt on this subject should obtain the
issue of the Architects' Journal to which I have referred—October 26th, 1933—look at
the photographs, read the descriptions, and realise that the majority of those areas
were strenuously defended.
As a matter of fact, the very greatest care is taken to ensure that Representations
are accurate and fair. Frequently complaints are made to me by parish priests and
social workers that additional houses should be included in Representations, but
in no instance has any house been included unless the circumstances justified this
course, and never for the purpose of obtaining a larger site or for municipal improvements,
such as road widening, as has so often been suggested at Inquiries.
The procedure followed may be of interest. It is the duty of the District Sanitary
Inspectors to report any house or area which in their opinion might justify work under
the Housing Acts in preference to the Public Health Act. I then visit with the
Housing Inspectors to discuss clearance as against reconditioning. If we come to
the conclusion that clearance is probably the most satisfactory method for dealing
with the houses, a detailed report as regards each house amounting to several typewritten
pages, is prepared from the Inspector's notes and checked by me. Only after
this has been prepared and the premises again visited and particulars verified, and