The Slums of Chelsea
ABOUT a year and a half ago, the Chelsea Housing Association published the first of a series of docu- ments with the determination of enlightening the public and arousing its sense of responsibility for the slums in its midst. In October of last year it issued a statement of what results had been secured and of what remained to be done. A review of the Association's work may be of interest, not merely for its own sake, but as an encourage- ment to others struggling elsewhere against like adverse circumstances.
It had been known for some time that evil conditions existed in the borough of Chelsea, and at least one repre- sentation had been made to the Ministry of Health that an inquiry should be held under the National Health Insurance Act ; but this was not done. The Chelsea campaign opened with the formation of the Housing Association and the publication of the report of its sur- veyor—Mrs. John Barclay—who is well known in con- nexion with the Magdalen Mission at Somers Town.
The difficulty, in the face of a somewhat lethargic Borough Council, was to get in touch with the tenants suffering under neglectful landlords, for the poor tenant is often frightened of making a statement. First contacts were established by the simple process of advertising in the Times. This succeeded and in pursuance of the Surveyor's reports, a number of actions against landlords were fought in the county court which in every case issued favourably for the policy of the Association. The effect was remarkable and a constructive movement for reform was soon on foot. The difficulty with the Borough Council appears to have arisen from unfamiliarity with the real facts of the housing conditions on the part of leading councillors together with an unfortunate political bias which in an extremely Conservative residential quarter like Chelsea is unduly apt to obstruct a movement for the removal of slum conditions and to be content to let things drift. For instance, one prominent member of the council wrote referring to the surveyor's report as. " electioneering literature," and another, whose sincerity would not be impugned though her judgment well may be, wrote protesting against actions which she regarded as " deliberately misleading and intended to mislead."
Fortunately, and none too soon, all debate in Chelsea as to the truthfulness of what the Association said in document after document was stilled once for all by the action of the Morning Bost, which in its issues of Decem- ber 2nd and 3rd, 1926, went thoroughly into the whole question of the " astonishing charges brought against the Borough Council of Chelsea and landlords . . .," and reported that " personal investigation . . . shows that the report of the local housing association has not exaggerated the conditions." The whole disgusting tale of rats, lice, bugs and the like had to be accepted as true; the houses against which the association proceeded in terms of section 10 .of the 1925 Act were put in order to a very considerable extent and the Borough Council speedily produced a definite promise of a scheme to rectify the area lying south of the King's Road, and known, not inappropriately, as the World's End. The land was purchased and the scheme itself will presumably be published soon. The apparent ease with which the Borough Council changed its attitude goes far to confirm the view expressed in the Association's report that " in comparison with most other London boroughs the housing problem is simple." There are still slums in Chelsea, however. The Association's report calls for " a vigorous attitude on the part of the Borough Council towards the central or syndicate area lying near Cadogan Square." Information obtained for the most part from the public records at Somerset House throws a useful and none too pleasant light upon the syndicate in question. In its origin this concern was innocuous enough : no one would suggest that the late Lord Cadogan acted otherwise than warrantably in selling some twenty acres of his land to a development syndicate. The project was financed in much the ordinary way. A large sum was left due to the seller's side on mortgage, debentures were sold to leading insurance companies and the share capital was issued to shareholders. The whole concern has had a difficult and chequered career. The balance-sheet shows that no dividends are paid, and that large arrears of interest have accumulated. What is clear is that the syndicate has in its possession an area of land behind Cadogan Square for whose conditions it may be easy to find excuses, but which is none the less a slum.
Amongst those interested in this syndicate arc the North British and Mercantile Insurance Company and the Commercial Union Assurance Company. Now, the distinguished financiers who direct the fortunes of these companies include prominent churchmen and leading politicians like Lord Younger and Sir Robert Horne. Is it unreasonable to appeal to them to use their influence towards promoting a business-like arrangement between the syndicate, its creditors, and the Borough Council, which could count upon the support of the Housing Asso- ciation and the ratepayers of Chelsea for a policy of acquiring the unfortunate area in question and turning it into a decent residential quarter for its existing tenants and others like them? A fair price should be paid, and the bargain should suit all concerned. How far investors in such property are cognizant of the physical condition of the houses representing their security is necessarily matter of conjecture ; but it is obvious that a heavy load of moral responsibility rests upon all, be they rich or poor, individuals or corp,-rations, leaseholders or freeholders or ground landlords, who have any financial interest in property which has fallen into the condition exposed in the Association's reports. Whatever schemes the syndicate and its associates may have for eventual re- building, these do nothing to lessen the responsibility resting on the Borough Council meanwhile.
It is idle to pretend that the Borough Council has done well for the Chelsea slums. The present councillors inherited a bad position. Their predecessors twenty-five years ago received ample warning from the then Medical Officer, and it is beyond dispute that the present deplorable condition is due to much neglect on the part of successive Mayors and Councils. Let us have done with the timidity which prevents Borough Councillors from using their existing ample powers to force landlords of all sorts and conditions to do their legal duty at their own expense. Lady Chelmsford says of Westminster, " . . Rate- payeis will wish to know what holds the Council back ?
So, with regard to much that remains undone in Chelsea, we would ask the Mayor, because he is the proper spokes- man for his borough, to take the matter of this syndicate area in hand and make a public statement regarding it. As a rule the first thing to find out in such cases is who is making money out of them, and we see no reason to think this case is exceptional. Where do the rents of such places go, and why are they not spent more freely in restoring them to better conditionS ?
Previous page
