View report page

49
flats, maisonettes and houses on other sites and also converted 9
houses to provide accommodation for 20 families. A further reference
to overcrowding was made in my Annual Report for 1928 in which
I listed the overcrowded dwellings on the records of the Public
Health Department and the following examples, selected at random,
show the conditions under which some families were living.
In one instance three adults and four children were occupying
one room having a cubic capacity of 980 cubic ft. whereas the cubic
capacity required for a family of that size was 2,200 ft.; in another,
four adults and two children were living in a scullery of which the
cubic capacity was 480 ft. against the required capacity of 1,200
cubic ft.; whilst in a third, two adults and five children were living
in one room for which the respective figures were 847 and 1,800
cubic ft. The cubic capacity stated to be required was the minimum
considered necessary for adequate ventilation.
I also pointed out that the overcrowding in the borough had
been increased by the process of industrialisation in the borough
which was steadily proceeding, under very little control, and without
any consideration for the amenities of any particular neighbourhood,
and stated that this process was occurring in four principal
directions:—-
1. By demolition of dwelling houses and erection of factories
and workshops on the vacant sites.
2. By conversion of parts of dwelling houses into factories
or workshops.
3. By conversion of parts of dwelling houses into a factory
or workshop, the remainder being retained as a dwelling.
4. By the erection of factories or workshops on the gardens
or yards of dwelling houses.
In this Report I also enumerated the various districts in which
this industrialisation had taken place and gave figures showing
that of the 814 premises in the borough used as workshops (without
mechanical power) 276 were in specially constructed premises, 103
were combined shop and business premises (in some cases being
also used as private dwellings) and 435 were premises which had
been built for use as private houses but were being used entirely
or in part as workshops. Nevertheless, the sorry state of affairs
continued and it was not until 1935 that the problem of overcrowding
was tackled.
Prior to the Housing Act, 1935 there was no general legal
standard for determining whether a house was overcrowded and
usually it was necessary to deal with overcrowding under the
Nuisance Section of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. There
were, however, provisions with regard to overcrowding in houses