[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] Sia,—In this district, and,
no doubt, in many others, there arc a number of cottages in varying stages of dilapidation which are no longer inhabited. The principal cause of decay has been the failure of the roof, due to the weight and ultimate softening and porosity of the freestone roofing flags. The walls, however, of the hardest whinstone, generally 2 feet thick, arc as straight and sound as when they were built. If the proprietor is anxious to do something in a small way t„ help in the housing problem, he must, if he is to benefit from either of the Housing Acts, build his cottage de novo, discarding the old walls and producing in brick an inferior habitation colder and unsuited to the climate. Building in stone is now, of course, prohibitive in price, even if the skilled stonemasons could be found.
It occurred to me that assistance might be forthcoming in another manner, and I have made inquiries from the Inspector of Taxes whether, in the case of particular cottages, still roofed and utilized as stores, &c., it might be possible to allow the cost of regeneration in the maintenance claim, but his opinion at present appears to be adverse to the suggestion. If by legislation, or possibly under existing powers, such expenditure could normally be included in maintenance it would give the proprietor some encouragement and help, would certainly be less costly to the State than the Housing Act subsidy, and would give the tenant a better home.—I
Previous page
