THE PULFORD STREET SITE
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Although it is rather late in the day I would like to thank Mr. G. W. Currie for the reference in his letter of April 4th to the "excellent and admirable work which the Westminster City Council is now, completing near Ebury Bridge," and at the same time to tell him that the Soho and Chelsea corner of Pimlico areas have had, and arc still having, the serious attention of the City Council.
I do not dispute his statement that an expenditure of 1100,000 by the Westminster City Council on a housing scheme would not cost the Council more than 15,000 per annum, or a rate of one-eighth of a penny, but has this anything to do with Mr. Currie's original suggestion, viz., that the City Council should, notwithstanding their previous decision, undertake the development of the Pulford Street site? It was suggested by him that following the re-develop- ment of the Milbank Estate the City Council would reap a "golden harvest" and consequently could well afford out of such harvest to take over and develop the Pulford Street site.
I would again point out that so far as the increased revenue which it is anticipated will be derived from the re-development at Milbank is concerned, only one-eighth will ensue for the direct benefit of the ratepayers in the City, and this increase will probably only barely cover the cost of the _Milbank Housing Scheme. The remaining seven-eighths will be paid to the London County Council and other pre- _ cepting authorities, and will consequently not be available for any housing scheme that may be carried out by the City Council.
I cannot say when the development of the Milbank Estate will be completed, but the question is not material to the point at issue since the City Council will not receive any increase in rates beyond that required to pay for the Milbank Housing Scheme.—I am, Sir, &c., Fa. NK EYE. 13 Golden Square, London, W.1.
Previous page
