View report page

32
five hundred, should it be found that two houses alone
could be erected within the limits of its boundary.
The morality of placing upon the owner the onus of the
provision of a due amount of open space sufficient to satisfy
the requirements of health, is not open to question. Whilst
yet the estate is in the prospective stage of development, the
plan of building should conform to this contingency. The
public have the right to demand,and that right isalready recognised
in principle in the Building Acts, that the house which is
about to be built, and placed in the market for sale or occupation,
shall be a dwelling in the real acceptation of the term, a
house where health may be maintained and where children
may be reared. Neither should the public be required in
consequence of the default of the landowner, whether that
default be individual or collective, to provide at a later date,
at a great expense, spaces which are deemed to be the
absolutely essential adjuncts to houses boasting the pretention
of healthy habitations.
Houses for the occupation of the working classes arc
commonly built in groups. To apportion to each more than
a yard sufficient for domestic requirement might be considered
unnecessary, but a playground common to all might be furnished,
and in the case where more than one owner is interested,
this could be done upon a combined scheme and by
proportionate contribution. The town occupier would then
enjoy not only a yard offering a sufficient accommodation for
the usual domestic offices, but in addition the right of user
to the open space.
In some isolated instances, both in London and in the
provincial towns, either liberality or necessity has prompted
the owner to adopt this scheme. In the cases which have
been observed, the houses are tenanted by a middle class.
Day by day, in the enclosure groups of children might be seen
engaged in a variety of games. Indeed it is a rare occasion