[Report 1962] / Medical Officer of Health, Dudley County Borough.

  • Dudley (England). County Borough Council.
Date:
1962
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1962] / Medical Officer of Health, Dudley County Borough. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    95/114 page 93
    IMPROVEMENT GRANTS C'irciilar No. 42 ()2 orio’iiiatiiiii' from the .Ministr\’ of Housing and Local (Government was issued in August of the vear under review. ft It })la(*ed on local authorities the responsibility of stimulating’ tlu' Improvement (Grant system, already widely })uhlieised both on a national and local level. Local authorities were also asked to inform the Minister of their })ro])osals. Dudley undertook to carry out a survey of property typical of the type which could be categorised as warranting' improvement. It wa.s realised that this would be a time absorbing’ task and one which would have to be sandwiched between other ecpially im{)ortant housing’ responsibilities, particularly house* ins])ections and })reparatorv work for shun cU'arancc areas. The ovc'r- all sur\'ey of the Borough was t'vcntually com{)leted and a detailed house to house canvas eonmu'need. ddie latter eoineided with tlu* onset of the cold s})ell and j)ro^ress was impeded; however, in- troductory letters were se'ut to owners of approximately loU houses and as many of these owners as it was j)ossible to contact we're in- tervieweel. \\'hen interest was shown, e'onsidei’abh' time was spe'iit in fully exj)laiuino' the* ^rant syste'iu and su^oestini^ the most t'avour- able type e)f adaptation. He)oklets were also issued wlu're nee-essary. This e'anvas is still pre)e'e'e'din^. anel it is too e'arly ye*t to ,LU\'e' a sum- mary e)f the results, but it is true to say that e)wne'r-oe'e'U})ie'rs are' the- e)nly perse)ns te) elate whe) are* like'ly te) make*. e)r have* made. apj)lie*a- tion. One tinels as the survey pre)^‘resses that elelerly pee){)le whe) are* e)wner-e)e'e*upiers. partie'idarly the)se livino- alone, anel e)wners (A' renteel houses, are the most relue'tant te) modernise. There is also the e)wner-e)ee'U|)ier whe). alreaely having' a mort^a^e. is unwilling’ te) aeld te) an existing finaiu'ial })urelen. I have also previously e'om- mented that a live ai)plie‘atie)n bee'e)mes dormant if it is tbunel lu'e'cs- sary to issue lenL:fthy spee‘ifie‘atie)ns e)f re'pairs to prole)n^' the life' ed‘ the pre)perty te) tlie reepiisite lo e)r .40 years. These I think ai'e the* barriers to be overcome if ve)luntarv mexlernisation is te) sue'e'e'e*el. A forecast e)f future h'^islatie)!) was the sui)-^^estie)n e)f e'e)m))ulse)ry pe)wers eontaineel in para”Taj)h .S. anel the ree'cntly issueel White' Paper e)n He)using arnplitieel this. As a pre'liminary e'onunent on this ))roposcel new housing’ pe)lie'V I would say that imj)rove'me‘nt of he)uses will still be relative'ly slow if e'ompulsion is limite'd to a ehano-(‘ e)l‘ te'iiane'y or whe'u an e'xistini>‘ te'nant reepu'sts it. Only applie'ations we-re- re'e'e'ive-el in l!Mi2. a ti^iire' whie'h eni- phasiscfl the* neeel for a elee-isi ve* policy te) boost the* nnmbe'rs of house's bre)u^ht up te) a me)de'rn stanelarel. Moelernisatie)!) is as important a soe-ial nu'asure' as the* e'U'arin^' e)f slums, auel pe)wers te) eh'al with the so e-alleel twilii^ht'* j)roj)e'rty she)ulei be e(|ually as enVetive'. SANITARY ADMINISTRATION Particulars of Inspections Routine' we)rk e'e)ntinue'el unde'r the* Publie* He'alth Act. B-J.'P), and elurin^ the year 247 inspee‘tie)ns and 0.48 re-inspe'e-tions were maele'. 4'he number e)f j)reliminary ne)tie‘es se'r\'ed was IIS. anel the* number e‘e)mplieel with was 75. Statute)ry notie'e's numbere'd 52 anel to ne)tie'es were e*e)mphed with.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3