Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
Somerset County Herald and Taunton Courier. Saturday 21 Nov 1936
Page 7 Column 3
DEMOLITION OF HOUSES
TAUNTON COUNCIL PROPOSALS
MINISTRY OF HEALTH INQUIRY
Proposals by Taunton Town Council to demolish 28 houses, which have a total population of 88, were publicly inquired into by Mr. M. B. BLACKSHAW, A.R.I.B.A., on behalf of the Ministry of Health, in the Council Chamber of the Municipal Buildings on Tuesday. The Council have asked the Ministry to confirm clearance orders in respect of these houses.
THE CLEARANCE AREAS.
The Town Clerk (Mr. W. H. BAILEY) mentioned that up to the present time 63 clearance orders had been made by the Council, 35 of which the Minister had confirmed. Confirmation of two had been refused, three were the subject of the inquiry, and 23 others had been submitted to the Minister for confirmation.
The orders to which the inquiry related were:- East Reach, No. 13, two houses with a population of four; Union Gate, No. 1, 19 houses, 57 persons; Upper High-street, No. 4, seven houses, 27 persons – total, 28 houses, 88 persons. Orders previously confirmed dealt with 333 houses.
“NOT CONTESTED.”
Two houses included in East Reach No. 13 area belong to Mrs. Helena SYMES.
The Town Clerk said apparently it was not contested that the houses were unfit for human habitation. It had been suggested, on behalf of the owner, that the buildings should be allowed to remain for storage purposes.
The Medical Officer (Dr. John ALLEN) said he considered that the premises obstructed the light and air to the frontal house, No. 6, East Reach, and should be demolished.
SUGGESTED RE-CONDITIONING.
Union Gate No. 1 area comprises 19 houses. Six belong to Mr. W. T. CORNISH, one to Mr. F. W. NORTHCOTT, and 12 to Mrs. Eliza TATE. All gave notice of objection.
The Town Clerk said he had received a letter from Messrs. A. W. Parker & Co. suggesting that Mr. NORTHCOTT's premises, No. 7, should be converted into storage accommodation in connection with his motor business. He was prepared not to allow the house to be used for human habitation when he obtained possession from the present tenant. Mrs. TATE, apparently, did not contest the unfitness of her houses as they at present existed. She suggested it was possible to re-condition the 12 by converting them into six.
Dr. ALLEN said he was of opinion that the conversion of the 12 houses into six, with through ventilation and a backlet, should not be approved owing to the defective structure of walls and roof, marked infestation with bugs, and the low height of living-room and bedroom ceilings.
OWNERS AND COMPENSATION.
Mr. CORNISH offered no objection to the demolition of five houses forming a block, but asked that the other house, which was detached, should be allowed to remain. He was willing to have it put into proper order. He pointed out that the roofs of the five houses were repaired about two years ago at a cost of £80. The rents were only about 4s 6d to 5s a week, and having paid the rates himself, he did not think he had made £5 in the last few years. Could he get compensation?
RISING DAMPNESS.
“If you are to condemn every house in Taunton that has a little rising damp you will condemn all the Crescent,” said[?] Mr. CORNISH. “A lot of the Council houses are also damp.”
Dr. ALLEN replied that the houses in question were damp to a marked degree. It appeared to him almost as if the walls were like a sponge.
Mr. CORNISH mentioned that three occupants of the houses were old age pensioners. One was 92 years old.
Answering Mr. C. M. B. KITE, who represented Mrs. TATE, Dr. ALLEN said the premises were as badly infested as any he knew in the town.
Mr. KITE: How do you treat places infested in this way? - Burn them down if possible.
Do you do that to your Council houses? - No, we fumigate them with cyanide.
That method. Dr. ALLEN added, was generally satisfactory.
“OLD TAUNTON.”
A Taunton architect, Mr. H. S. W. STONE, gave details of a proposed scheme for converting the 12 cottages into six. “We want to keep a little old of Taunton standing,” he said. He was satisfied[?] that the dampness in the property could be eliminated. On the question of cost, Mr. STONE said he had at his disposal a four-figure sum, but he did not think all of it would be needed.
“HARSH” ORDER ALLEGATION.
The Upper High-street No. 4 area consisted of seven houses- two belonging to the Misses HITCHCOCK and Mr. E. J. HITCHCOCK, four to Mr. Charles LOCK, and one to Mr. Eli PIKE.
The Town Clerk read a letter written on behalf of Mr. LOCK, who was absent owing to ill-health. This stated that he considered the proposed order was harsh and unjustifiable, as the houses faced the main road, had through ventilation, and were open at the back. He had already demolished two cottages at the rear, and carried out improvements for the benefit of the front houses. Mr. LOCK partly depended upon the income from the property as a means of livelihood. He was prepared to undertake reasonable improvements.
A HIGH-STREET PROBLEM.
Mr. KITE, appearing for Mr. PIKE, the owner of No. 37 and 38, High-street, pointed out that only No. 37 was included in the clearance area. It was impossible, however, to demolish No. 37 without taking away part of No. 38, which was over the passage-way.
The Inspector closed the inquiry, and later visited the properties included in the clearance areas. The decision of the Ministry will be announced in due course.