Insanitaky Cottages, Banstead.

Oral Answers to Questions — Peace Treaties. – in the House of Commons at on 4 December 1922.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Francis Broad Mr Francis Broad , Edmonton

81.

asked the Minister of Agriculture whether be is aware that on the 23rd February, 1922, the medical officer of health for the Rural District of Epsom reported to the county medical officer of health that certain cottages erected in 1921 on the Sheep and Wells farms, in the parishes of Banstead and Woodmansterne, contained rooms that were unfit for human habitation and asking for immediate attention; that the county medical officer of health for Surrey inspected and agreed; that the rural council medical officer communicated with the county land agent on 27th May, 1922, complaining that nothing had been done to remedy the evils; that on 22nd June this was followed by another letter enclosing copy of a letter from the medical practitioner attributing the illness of his patients to the condition of the houses; and that on the 23rd November, 1922, the medical officer of health for the rural district served notice on the county land agent that four of the cottages were unfit for human habitation; whether the attention of the Ministry of Agriculture has been drawn to the condition of affairs and, if so, when; what action is proposed in view of the financial liability of the Ministry for these land settlement schemes to trace the cause of these defects in new cottages; and whether any and, if so, what action is proposed to be taken to make the cottages habitable?

Photo of Sir Harry Barnston Sir Harry Barnston , Eddisbury

The attention, of the Ministry has not hitherto been drawn to the action of the medical officer of

health of the rural district of Epsom, but in July of the present year a complaint concerning the dampness of the cottages referred to by the hon. Member was received from the British Legion. Inquiry was then made from the county council, and the Ministry's chief architect inspected several of the cottages, which are of the bungalow type. I am advised that the dampness is due to condensation on the walls of the cottages and that there is no question of penetration of wet from the outside or of the non-provision of proper damp courses. The condition has been somewhat aggravated by the fact that the cottages were nearly all occupied very soon after they were completed. The Ministry is also advised that condensation must of necessity occur on new 9-inch solid walls with smooth internal plaster, and is liable to recur under violent changes of temperature unless special care is taken to keep the rooms thoroughly aired and ventilated. The chief architect of the Ministry also reports that these cottages are excellently built and comfortably planned and that there is no justification for the suggestion that any of them are unfit for habitation. I am also informed that the statements of the medical officer of the rural district have received the attention of the Surrey Small Holdings Sub-Committee and that their efforts are being principally directed to induce the tenants of the cottages to ventilate them regularly as the principal precaution against the recurrence of condensation. The sub-committee referred to is watching the situation closely, and I do not consider that any action on my part is called for.