HC Deb 01 March 1911 vol 22 cc517-8W

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether he will state how many local authorities have now represented to the Board the expediency of amending the Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1909, by substituting a judicial tribunal for the local government as the appeal tribunal under the Act; whether he is aware that the local bodies making such representations include the following metropolitan borough councils: Battersea, Chelsea, Fulham, Hammersmith, Hampstead, Kensington, Lewisham, Westminster, and Wandsworth, and that the Camberwell Borough Council, the respondents on Mr. Arlidge's successful appeal to the Local Government Board, have also expressed their dissatisfaction with the appeal procedure of the Board?


Representations to the effect mentioned have been received by the Local Government Board from thirty-two local authorities out of over 1,800 such authorities in England and Wales. I am aware that the thirty-two local authorities referred to include the nine Metropolitan Borough Councils named, and also the Borough Council of Greenwich, and that the Camberwell Borough Council have also expressed some dissatisfaction in regard to the method of procedure adopted in connection with appeals to the Board under the Act of 1909. Out of the thirty-two local authorities who have made representations not one has had any experience of the Board's inquiries into appeals under the Act of 1909, nor do I find that these authorities have any special claim to be heard in this matter, based on action taken by them under the Housing Acts. According to the Returns furnished to the Board under Section 44 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, for the years ended 31st March, 1909, and 31st March, 1910, no closing orders were made by the ten Metropolitan Borough Councils mentioned in either of those years, and only three of that number report any action under Part II. of the Act of 1890 in the same years. Of the twenty-two provincial authorities included, eight authorities report no action in either of those years under that part of the Act of 1890, and only four of the same twenty-two authorities made or obtained from the justices any closing orders during those years.