He Turns to Rabbits - And The Council’s Tenants Talk

Mr. G. W. Cooper (the man who kept canaries in his bedroom), of 58, St. James Close, Rushden, has been told: “No, you must not have an aviary in the garden.” “Right,” he says, “then I’ll keep rabbits.”

Told of the Council’s decision by an “Echo and Argus” representative yesterday, Mr. Cooper said: “They cannot stop you from keeping hens or rabbits. I was reading in a rabbit book the other day that if people wanted to keep rabbits they could keep them, and it was impossible for anyone to touch them. It also said that the society concerned would send a fellow to go into the matter personally.

“When I receive the Council’s letter I shall say ‘I’m going to put a rabbit hutch up; how far am I to put it from the house?’ Why should you be dictated to? Have a decent place by all means, but the Council should see that you have a decent place and not try stopping you.”

The Housing Committee take the view that all hen houses and huts, that many tenants would like to build in their gardens, are very definitely out.

Householders’ opinions, however, differ considerably on the subject, as our reporter found when he visited the Higham Road estate.

Mrs. L. Smith, Mr. Cooper’s next door neighbour, said: “I am not worried either way. There is plenty of room in the barn for cycles.” Her husband is not interested in keeping livestock.

Not Worried

As far as her neighbour’s desired aviary was concerned she said, “I should not mind it at all so long as it was at the bottom of the garden. Nothing would worry me like that as long as they did not have any dirt over this side. As long as the place is clean and respectable I don’t mind.”

Living the other side of the Cooper household are Mr. and Mrs. Gooding and their two children, and Mrs. Gooding said: “I feel he should be allowed to put it up, I cannot see that it does any harm.”

Further down St. James’s Close, at No. 44, Mrs. B. M. Ambridge was sweeping her front garden and at the same time shooing children out of the front gate. “People like that,” she said, “should have a garden field. I don’t think it is right to have those things around the house when there are children about.”

Along The Hedges, Mrs. E. Childs, of No. 30, let her Glasgow accent have full play on the opposite side of the argument.

“I think it is awful if you can’t get anything you please in the house,” she said. “I badly want a hen run, and I want a fence up. It is no good doing anything to the garden now; the children and dogs run right over it.”

Mrs. Childs formerly lived in Coronation Avenue, and they kept hens there. “They are ‘all over’ up there,” she said. “They even have them in Higham Ferrers new houses. If one Council will have henhouses, why should the other stop it? If I thought we were going to have this business, and be refused this and that, I should never have taken one of these houses. I would rather have had an old Council house. I asked for a hen-house long ago, and they said definitely that we could not have one.

It was then that a Council official arrived. Said Mr. T. R. Wallis, a seven-years-in-the-Army baker: “It’s just like being in the Army. The Colonel’s coming round and you have got to get ready. You only want some whitewash, some shovels and some ‘Bluebell’.”

Tenants Protest Over Rent Increase
200 Send Petition to Council

Two hundred Rushden council house tenants have signed a petition, tendered to the Urban Council, in protest at the “excessive” increase of rents in The Crescents, Highfield Road, Coronation Avenue, Chester Road, Boundary Avenue and Spinney Road.

The petition, which expresses the view that the tenants are having to bear the brunt of council rent increases, stresses the lack of conveniences at the homes as compared with other types of council houses.

Their main points are: The W.C., situated just inside the back porch, causes embarrassment; there is no privacy for growing children with regard to washing facilities; bathrooms are glorified wash-houses; the situation of the coal-place, inside the kitchen.

It adds that considering these disadvantages, the tenants feel that they are being made to subsidise the new houses in the town and regard the increase as inequitable.

Big Grumble

They suggest that a flat rate of increase should be applied to all council houses and that one section should not be singled out to bear the heaviest load.

A visit by a reporter to the west ward of the town served further to reveal the resentment which the latest two-shilling increase in the rents has aroused.

“We have one big grumble,” was the universal comment.

“When I came up here before the war the rent was seven shillings a week,” said one woman. “It’s gone up now to 14s. 6d.”

“What do you think of the petition?” we heard one woman ask another in the street. “Well, I’ve not signed it,” she replied. “When I came up here 17 years ago, I was already paying 12s. 6d. a week for rooms. We are glad to have the house.”

Lack of Space

“Take a look at those houses over there” (Tennyson Road) was the rejoinder. “They’ve all got covered-in porches. We’ve nothing. It cost us £30 to have a workshop put up in the garden. My husband was having to mend shoes in the kitchen – and as for washing, I have to stop in bed until my husband and son have finished in the mornings; there isn’t room for all of us in the kitchen at once.”

This grievance was the clue to the whole of the feeling on the estate of non-parlour type houses. It concerns lack of space and having all the “conveniences” inside.

Leading off from the kitchen is the coal-place and the bathroom, which also contains the copper. Between them is shared the babies’ prams, dolls’ prams and bicycles. The pantry leads off from the living room.

At The Crescents it was the same story. Waving across to the Irchester Road houses, which are of the parlour type and have covered-in porchways, at the gross weekly rental of 16s., a group of women deplored these extra facilities for a matter of 1s. 6d.

“We do not mind paying for conveniences, but we are paying for inconveniences,” was one comment. “These houses are all right for more elderly people, but they are hopeless for bringing a family up,” was another comment.

If it is wet on washdays when the bathroom is in use, the prams have to stand in the living room, we learned. The bicycles stand in the kitchens; deck chairs and lawn mowers are invariably kept in the lavatories, and bottled fruit has to be distributed with spare crockery in the bedroom wardrobes because of the smallness of the living room pantry.

“We are not so silly as to expect alterations,” said one spokeswoman, “We really do feel that the majority of the councillors do not know the type of houses on which they keep increasing the rents. After all, there is simply no comparison between these pre-war council houses and the post-war ones, and their rent has been subsidised at only 4s. 6d. more!

“The people in the 19s. a week houses grumble at what they consider to be the high price, but I cannot find anyone who would change with me. I have tried.”

From the two housewives who went round with the petition we learned that they had a ready response with signatures. A committee has been tentatively formed and awaits the result of the petition. There is the hint that should it fail they might form a Tenants’ League.

Council Disagrees On Housing
Do Tenants Really Want to Purchase?

Do any of Rushden council’s tenants want to purchase their houses? The question, arising from the Government’s recently announced policy, was debated at Rushden Council’s meeting on Wednesday after the Housing Committee had put in reasons why none of the Ministry’s recommendations should be taken up immediately.

The committee’s views on three points:-

Sale of houses to tenants; Not aware that any tenant desires to purchase.

Increased proportion of private building: It is already planned that the council should build 44 and private enterprise 13 next year. The question of the remaining eight allocated to the town should be decided later.

New house-type plans: It is too late to change plans for the council’s batch of 44.

In the discussion, Councillor A. H. Bailey claimed there were small firms who would be glad to build a house or two, thus quickening progress and enabling the council to claim an extra allocation. The truth about the purchase scheme was that the tenants were not aware of any desire of the council to sell.

Councillor A. Allebone supported Mr. Bailey’s views, but Councillors J. T. Richardson and Mrs. Muxlow foresaw difficulties in the purchase plan.

After the chairman (Ald. C. G. Faulkner) had said that specific applications should precede a decision, the committee’s report was adopted.

Repairs surplus is inadequate, rents may go up
Cost of repairing Rushden’s council houses exceeds the funds available, warns the urban council’s treasurer and accountant, Mr. W. D. White, in the annual abstract of accounts.

“The excess of repairs expenses in the year over the income reduced the surplus to just over £8, 000,” he states. “The housing committee had early notice of the position and decided to cut its decoration programme for 1954/5, but the question of the adequacy of the present annual contribution of £8 per house remains to be considered.

“If it is to be increased, house rents will need to be increased.”

Based on housing finance experts’ calculations the council’s repairs account should stand at over £20,000.

Mr. White notes that the council’s loan debt at the end of the year was nearly £1,250,000 and had since passed this figure, mainly because of housing borrowings.

He also says: “Only a few advances were made in the year under the Small Dwelling Acquisition Acts, although interest rates compare favourably with those charged by other lending bodies. Perhaps the facilities available are not as well known as they should be.”

Rushden Urban Council has decided that in cases where approval is given for the erection of garages or the provision of hard-standings at council houses, tenants should have all incidental works completed to the surveyor's satisfaction by an approved contractor, or place an order, accompanied by a deposit, of the estimated cost of the work.

Widow by gaslight with nowhere to go

Inquiries by the “Echo” this week have uncovered a disturbing social problem in which no party involved is really to blame. It is a social problem which should not occur, but only too often does.

It concerns: Mrs. Rose Dicks, an 87-year-old widow still living in the Victorian era of gaslight at 153 High Street, Rushden; a house generally recognised as being sub-standard; the Calgary and Edmonton Land Company Ltd, London; and Rushden Urban Council.

The London company bought a site, which includes Mrs. Dicks’ house – the only one still occupied – about four years ago. The intention was to redevelop the site with shops, parking areas and a pedestrian precinct.

Outline planning permission was rejected on nine points, seven raised by the Ministry of Transport. After consultations another scheme was submitted and this was eventually given outline approval.

No Electricity

The result is that the company is now offering the site for sale. Throughout all this Mrs. Dicks has been living alone, paying about 30s a week rent. She has no electricity, hot water, inside bath or lavatory, and the ironic thing about all is that it would be in everybody’s interest to see Mrs. Dicks moved.

Mrs. Dicks told the “Echo” that she would like to move providing that alternative accommodation was suitable. She has bad legs and would obviously prefer a flat or similar accommodation on a ground floor.

The development company would also like to see her move. In fact we understand the company has offered Mrs. Dicks alternative accommodation which she has refused.

The clear intention is that Mrs. Dicks’ house would be demolished if the site was redeveloped and if she was still occupying her house it could pose problems of sale.

No Danger

Mrs Rose Dicks

The local authority also figures in this, for in this social problem they should have a moral interest in an old ladies’ welfare.

An official of the Rushden Urban Council’s housing department said they had offered her alternative accommodation about ten years ago.

A month ago Mrs. Dicks applied to be placed on the housing list and this has been done. The “Echo” has no doubts that the council will deal with her sympathetically. New flats are due to be completed in February and it is possible that she could be offered one of them.

The “Echo” is not pointing the finger of blame or responsibility at anybody in this case. We know that everybody concerned is aware of Mrs. Dick’s situation.

But the situation does exist. Perhaps a direct approach to Mrs. Dicks could solve the problem to everybody’s satisfaction.