The importance and necessity for the deposit of plans with a sanitary authority cannot be over-estimated, but this deposit is of but little practical good unless it can be insured that all the buildings are erected strictly in conformity with these plans, and this, according to the Act, is the duty also of the town surveyor. As a matter of fact, it is quite impossible for any single person in any large town to perform this duty, and a staff of assistants is consequently necessary if the sanitary authority really wish their byelaws to be enforced.
Anyone who is practically acquainted with the difficulties that even architects experience in superintending buildings they have themselves designed, and how much they have to trust to the clerk of works (of which there is generally one to every building), will readily see what an absurdity it is to suppose that a town surveyor, with his multitude of other duties and attendances at committees and meetings, can even pretend to see that the 99 detail clauses of such byelaws as those emanating from the Local Government Board Office, or even those of a less stringent character, can possibly be enforced, especially when it is remembered that many of the buildings he has to inspect have no superintending architect, but are being erected for purposes of speculation by what are commonly known as jerry builders.
Laws may be passed, books on sanitary questions may be written, but until a change is made in the machinery and manner of the inspection of buildings in the course of erection, and a large staff of inspectors or sanitary police or some such officials are kept by a sanitary authority, very little real advancement will be made with the poorer classes of buildings.
It must in fairness to the builder be stated that to erect houses in strict accordance with the model byelaws would probably mean loss of money to him, as they could not possibly be built with any prospect of a reasonable return upon the outlay. This partly arises from the stringent clauses inserted with respect to the structure of walls and other precautions for the prevention of fires. I cannot help thinking that too much interference is now made by sanitary authorities for the protection of property from fire.[156] It is not a sanitary question, and is certainly one which chiefly affects insurance companies. Every one should be able to pay his small insurance premium and the companies should look after their own interests, and not expect it to be done by others. If the sanitary authority wish to interfere in the question of fire, why should not the protection of life be considered as much as property? Yet no clause can be discovered in the model byelaws rendering it compulsory to make some provision in dwelling-houses or factories for the easy escape of the inmates in case of fire. Indeed, as the Public Health Act does not authorise the enactment of a byelaw for such a purpose, such a clause would most probably be held to be ultra vires.
Another cause of expense to builders is the necessity imposed on them to provide a comparatively large open space at the back or sides of new dwelling-houses, thus sacrificing land, and sometimes making it almost impossible to build at all. This necessity for open gardens or yards at the back of even small labourers’ dwellings is in some towns pushed to an extreme. If such houses are erected in a thoroughly sanitary manner in all points of detail, it is questionable if this open space is really beneficial. My experience has shown me that the space is often misused, animals, such as rabbits, chickens, pigeons, &c., being kept there, or it is made into a so-called garden, really a refuse heap which is a receptacle for all the garbage and filth of the house, soon becoming a fruitful source of disease to the occupants of the house itself and the neighbours. It is also difficult to ensure that the space thus provided and approved of in the deposited plans shall not be built upon at some future period. It would be better if the streets in front of such dwellings were wide, and a narrow street or “drangway” constructed at the back for the dust-cart service, supply of coals, &c. The houses themselves should have their rooms properly and thoroughly ventilated; underground kitchens or living rooms should be prohibited. The drainage, water-supply, and all the apparatus in connection with them, should be perfect but simple. At the back of the house should be a small yard or court well paved with asphalte or other impervious material, in which should be placed the wash-house, w.c., &c. These and public parks and plenty of fresh air in the streets and in the dwelling-houses themselves should take the place of the large open spaces at the back of small dwelling-houses, which, as I have already stated, are generally so much misused.
The model byelaws with regard to new streets and buildings issued by the Local Government Board contain most admirable clauses—valuable suggestions which should receive attention from any town surveyor who has to advise his corporation upon the subject of framing a set of byelaws for his district—but they necessarily contain many clauses which are not suitable equally well for towns in the north, south, east, and west of England.
Many of the clauses are too stringent to be enforced, but this arises not from any fault in the byelaws themselves, but rather from the machinery employed in carrying them into effect. To secure all that they require adequate inspection is needed, and this might be effected if there was a fee charged by the urban authority of any town for the purposes of proper inspection of buildings in course of construction; and although it must be admitted that any provision which increases the cost of construction of small dwelling-houses which shall be complete in all sanitary requisites is undesirable, the extra cost of such inspection would be too small to be appreciable, while the advantages arising from such improved supervision would, even from a pecuniary point of view, be of immense advantage not only to the community as tending to improve the public health, but also to the owner as ensuring good honest work in return for his money. In larger and more expensive buildings this supervision is exercised by the architect, but as a rule there is no architect employed in the case of small houses, and the builder is accordingly left to his own devices, with frequently unfortunate results.
[153] ‘Model Bye-laws issued by the Local Government Board for the use of sanitary authorities. New Streets and Buildings, IV.’ Printed by George E. Eyre and William Spottiswoode, 1877.
[154] It is open also to question whether in the case of an old building being gradually altered into a new one, it would be possible to prosecute, as there is the following limitation as to proceedings in the Public Health Act 1875: “Any complaint or information made or laid in pursuance of this Act shall be made or laid within six months from the time when the matter of such complaint or information respectively arose” . . . (38 & 39 Vic. c. 55, s. 252). The complaint could not be made when the work was first commenced, as no offence would have been committed, and if made after the work was finished, it might be urged that the offence was commenced more than six months prior, and that the complaint should have been made “when the matter of such complaint or information respectively arose.”