Municipal Houses For Rushden
An Important Debate At The Council Meeting
Divergent Views as to the Site
Cost of the Scheme £65,577

At the meeting of the Rushden Urban Council on Wednesday the following report on the municipal housing scheme was presented:-

Housing Scheme

The scheme contemplates the provision of 112 houses off the Newton-road, in near proximity to the centre of the town. The total cost of the scheme, the details of which are given below, is £65,577 14s. 4d. The houses proposed to be erected vary in size and accommodation, ranging from semi-detached residences at proposed rentals of 17s. per week, to small dwellings for newly-married couples at proposed rentals of 7s. per week. These rentals may at first appear high, having regard to the rents now paid for ordinary artisan’s houses in Rushden, but the cost of building at the present time and the conditions attached by the Local Government Board to the payment of the subsidy to be granted by the Government, make it necessary that the rents charged should provide a substantial, contribution to the annual cost.

The Local Government Board in their circular of March last proposed that any deficiency should be defrayed as to 75 per cent. by the Government and as to the remaining 25 per cent. by the local rates. The Local Government Board have now issued a further circular stating that in order to avoid the element of uncertainty as to the burden which might have to be borne by Local Authorities they have approved the adoption of a scheme under which the burden on Local Authorities will be limited as nearly as possible to a penny rate. The Local Government Board, however, point out that they will reserve the right of reducing the amount of the subsidy in any case in which there is evidence of failure on the part of the Local Authority to secure due economy in the erection or management of the houses or that the best rents obtainable are not in fact being obtained, and ask Local Authorities to recognise that, while the revised terms of financial assistance are exceptionally advantageous, they will impose a corresponding responsibility on Local Authorities, and the Board will accordingly expect local Authorities to exercise effective supervision in regard to the cost of construction and the rents obtained, which should approximate as nearly as circumstances permit to the economic level.

The Committee are satisfied that on the question of economic construction and efficient management this Council will be able to satisfy all the Local Government Board’s requirements, and feel that the generous rents suggested, though far from an economic level, should also meet with the Board’s approval.

The Council have already arranged the terms of purchase of the land required for the scheme. In the first instance they negotiated the purchase of a field on the Newton-road, containing about 14½ acres, for £1,500, and subsequently, in order to avoid heavy expense in road making, decided to acquire about three acres of partly developed building land adjoining at prices ranging from 3s. to 1s. per yard, averaging 2s. 1d. per yard, and costing altogether £1,471 3s. 0d. The land has a long frontage to the Newton-road, and only about 319 yards of road-making will be required in order to carry out the present scheme, but the Council will take over the responsibility of completing and taking over Trafford-road and Hove-road to the latter’s junction with the Newton-road. The estimated cost of the land required for the houses now proposed will be £2,571 3s. 0d., leaving 7¾ acres, valued at £400, for future development, and in the meantime for use as allotments.

The scheme provides for the following types of houses, all with a southern aspect. The rents named are not conclusive, but are suggested as a basis for the purpose of the scheme:-

TYPE “A” – Four semi-detached houses, each containing parlour, living room, scullery, pantry, coals, w.c., and barn on ground floor, and three bedrooms and bathroom. Cost £669 each. Rent 15s. per week each.

TYPE “A1” – Two similar semi-detached houses with attic added. Cost £713 each. Rent 17s. per week each.

TYPE “A2” – Four houses similar to type “A” but forming parts of blocks of four houses. Cost £638 each. Rent 14s. per week each.

TYPE “A3” – Six houses similar to Type “A1” but forming parts of blocks of four houses. Cost £713 each. Rent 15s. 6d. per week each.

TYPE “B” – Seventy houses (68 in blocks of four and two semi-detached), each house containing living room, scullery, with bath, coals, larder, three bedrooms, with covered space, w.c., and barn outside. Cost £469 each. Rent 8s. per week each.

TYPE “B1” – Eight similar houses with attic to each. Cost £531 each. Rent 9s. per week each.

TYPE “C” – Sixteen houses in blocks of four, similar to type “B” but with two bedrooms. Cost £398 each. Rent 7s. per week each.

TYPE “D” – Two houses with shop and living room, other accommodation as in Type “B.” Cost £680 each. Rent 15s. per week each.

The prices given above are for building only, and do not include the cost of land, road making, and sewers, which is estimated to amount to £6,356, averaging £56 15s. 0d. per house.

The architect’s fees at £2 per cent., including quantities, will amount to £1,160 and the fencing to £1,120, which will be additional.

The following are the details of the total estimated costs:-

	£	s	d
Land	2571	3	0
Buildings, including fencing	58000	0	0
Sewers on Estate	405	10	8
Sewers on Newton-road	356	10	0
Street Works on Estate	2319	19	2
Street Works on Newton-road	704	11	6
Architects’ fees	1160	0	0
Legal expenses	60	0	0
Total	65577	14	4

The estimated annual expenditure and receipts are as follows:-

Expenditure

	£	s	d
£61791  3s.  0d. in respect of land and buildings, 60 years at £5  15s. per cent	3553	0	0
£762  0s.  8d. in respect of sewers, 30 years at £6  17s.  6d. per cent	52	10	0
£3024  10s.  8d. in respect of street works, 20 years at £8  7s.  0d. per cent	252	10	0
Rates at 9s.  2d. in the £	669	0	0
Insurance at 1s.  6d.  per cent. on buildings	42	0	0
Water supply	134	10	6
Allowance for repairs	100	0	0
Total	4803	10	6

Receipts

	£	s	d
Type “A” – 4 houses at weekly rental of 15s	156	0	0
Type “A1” – 2 houses at 17s	88	8	0
Type “A2” – 4 houses at 14s	145	12	0
Type “A3” – 6 houses at 15s.  6d	241	16	0
Type “B” – 70 houses at 8s	1456	0	0
Type “B1” – 8 houses at 9s	187	4	0
Type “C” – 16 houses at 7s	291	4	0
Type “D” – 2 houses and shops at 15s	78	0	0
Total	2641	4	0
Less allowance for empties and losses	96	4	0
	2548	0	0
Deficiency	2255	10	6
Total	4803	10	6

Under the scheme of the Local Government Board this deficiency will be met as follows:-

Discussion

Mr. Swindall: Will there be an inquiry as to site?

The Clerk: It will come up on the question of the loan.

Mr. Green: Will the Local Government Board accept liability for the whole period of 60 years?

The Clerk: Yes, they accept liability beyond the penny rate for the whole of the period.

Mr. Spencer thought the loan should not be open to the public, but should be guaranteed by the Government at a fixed rate. If all the big Corporations were going into the open market it would increase the rate of interest. He thought the interest should be not more than five per cent.

The Clerk said the Treasury would not compete with the open market.

Mr. Bazeley: As a member of the sub-committee, I move that this scheme be carried out and that the Council apply to the Local Government Board for their sanction of a loan of £66,000. Since the last meeting of the sub-committee Mr. Fisher has gone into this question most carefully and minutely, and he has done everything in his power to present the scheme in the best way to comply with the wishes of the town, both as regards the healthiness and appearance of the houses. He has suggested all possible up-to-date appliances for the interior of the houses for the benefit of the prospective tenants. Every member of the Council is somewhat staggered to see the cost of the buildings as compared with the cost of cottages in pre-war times. The cheapest cottages, with two bedrooms, which we built in King’s-road, cost about £171, whereas these will cost close on £400. This wide difference has been fully discussed by the sub-committee, and I told Mr. Fisher I was surprised that the cost had above doubled. It is accounted for by the fact that the cost of materials and wages have gone up double their pre-war amounts. Personally I think the prices of building materials have reached their maximum to-day, and it may be that the cost of the proposed new houses will be less than we estimate now. Undoubtedly the burning question in the country is the shortage of houses all over the country. The Government know there is a shortage and that they must subsidise local authorities in carrying out their building schemes. A. Bill is to be brought into the House of Commons giving great facilities to local authorities, providing their schemes are on an economical basis and the rents reasonable. The Government will guarantee that the local authority shall not have to pay more than a penny rate. That is a considerable step forward. As a Labour member of this Council I should have liked to see the rentals much less. (Hear, hear.) But I believe we stand in as good a position as a town as any in the county. Therefore, with proper supervision – and I am sure we have a very good architect helping us with this scheme – I think we can satisfy the requirements of the Local Government Board as well as any local authority in the country. Whatever the figures appear to be I do not think we shall see any scheme come out more favourable under present conditions. In regard to the architect’s charges, I think Mr. Fisher has met the Council in a fair, public-spirited manner in getting out the plans and quantities at 2 per cent. In regard to the site, the adverse criticism that we hear from certain quarters does not, to my mind, hold water. We could not have had a more pleasant site than the one chosen. It lies high and the view is very pleasant; I have never heard that there has been any illness in the Trafford-road houses because of the site, and the houses have been occupied for years. When the Local Government Board inquiry takes place, I am prepared to advocate the site to the best of my ability. I want to see the Council unanimous on the scheme and determined to carry it out at the very earliest date. It is due to us as a local authority to carry out the scheme. The motion of Mr. Spencer regarding town development seems to me to put the cart before the horse. Before you can develop the town you must accomplish the housing scheme. While there are no houses for the people to live in no new industries can come into the town and the town cannot be developed. The new housing scheme will be an advantage to the town if it will cost only a penny rate. As a local authority we ought to provide all the houses possible for the men who are coming back from the Army and have been fighting for us. Private enterprise cannot provide the houses, but we as a local authority with a subsidy from the Government can do so.

Mr. Spencer: I second the proposal. I think it is essential that we should be unanimous in a big undertaking like this. Continually large numbers of people are asking when shall we have the promised new houses. The time has come when we should do our best to provide a number of houses for the men returning from the war to their wives now living in rooms. I know a case of three married women living in one house waiting for the husbands to come home. We should like to have seen the rents nearer the old basis, but I am certain the committee have done their utmost in that and other directions. Regarding the old rents, I think the Government should make some declaration that rents in being raised should not go higher than the standard of the old houses compared with new houses. The war has placed us in great difficulties. In all our towns there has been no building done for a considerable time. This is because the Government would not allow it, as well as the fact that the cost was very high. There is no other alternative before us but that we as a local authority should carry out the scheme, and I hope it will soon be completed.

One-Roomed Houses

Mr. John Claridge: If the plans are submitted to the Local Government Board are we committed to the scheme? I have wondered about the wisdom of putting up one-roomed houses, and the more I think about it the more I disagree with the idea. I want to elevate the people. I should like to see houses with a parlour, or front room. People are coming round to the opinion that a front room is a necessary room in a house. It is very inconvenient to have only one room in a house. Children getting more educated will want to do their home lessons and studies, and there will be only the one room for them, and the same applies when visitors arrive. All must be in the one room. It is very necessary we should have more accommodation. I am afraid these new houses will not provide that. They are all right for young married couples or old married people, but for families we should provide more than one room.

Mr. Bates: What will be the size of the living-room?

The Chairman: The measurements are 14 feet by 12 feet 6 inches.

Mr. Bates: I rather differ from Mr. Claridge. I am satisfied that it is a good living room people want. They are not particular about the front room. Some people have furniture in their front room and some have not. If we provide houses with a good living room it is the best thing we can do for the people who want homes.

Mr. Swindall: We must congratulate the Clerk and the Surveyor on their having got out the scheme and such a splendid report. All ratepayers should get conversant with the scheme. I, like Mr. Claridge, am very dissatisfied with the one living room on the ground floor, and also that the scullery should not have a fireplace. There is only one room with a fire-place in front of which to dry clothes, and the people will have to sit in the same room. The people generally will not be pleased to go into such houses. I have spoken to quite a number and they all think a parlour should be provided for each house. In putting up two-roomed houses we should be going back to the agricultural labourers’ houses of one-room, with generally two bedrooms. That is all there is and for a rent of 7s. It is as bad as houses built years ago for agricultural labourers.

Mr. Bates: Oh, no; it is not.

Mr. Swindall: There is a majority in favour of the proposed 112 new houses, but a minority of us think they should not all be built up the Newton-road way. I moved at one committee meeting that only 50 be built on the Newton-road, and the remainder elsewhere. I agree that the local authority must build the houses. If we go in for a £66,000 scheme there will be no room for many years to come for any other building scheme.

Mr. Bates: Oh, yes, there will.

Mr. Swindall: It is not wise to put all your eggs into one basket. There is plenty of land in the town that should have been bought. It might have cost more a yard, but in the long run it would have been cheaper. I think it is an injustice to the people who reside in the other parts of the town to force them to go up Newton-road to live, perhaps right away from their work. In the same way it is an injustice to the manufacturers to have their employees living at such a distance. As a rule, workpeople like to live as near their work as possible. That the houses are wanted there is no doubt. If we had 200 we should want them, but we should have had 30 or 40 up the Wellingborough-road way, where you could have started building straight away. Instead of that we shall now have tremendous preliminary work in the way of sewers and water mains to lay. If we had gone up the Oakley-road these would be ready for us. I think I voice the feelings of the minority of the Council whose opinions should find expression. We gave about £3,000 for a park for the town, and now we are going to the opposite end of the town to build houses.

Mr. Bazeley: The one room downstairs is a matter of £ s d. You have got to consider the rentals that a working man can pay. In Kings-road there are some tenants who prefer a large living room and no parlour. Others prefer a parlour. In this scheme there are a number of houses, some with four bedrooms for large families, with larger rents, of course. The proposed cottages will face the south, and what could be more pleasant and healthy than that? Other houses will have an attic bedroom to save a little extra cost. The attic bedroom will make a good sitting room in the summer time as well as a bedroom. As regards not putting all our eggs into one basket, the Local Government Board would not agree to our building on the Oakley-road, with its little bit of a back-yard. There must not be more than so many houses to the acre. We shall have about 13 to the acre. I am not a builder, but I know if you build a large number of houses it is more economical to put them on one piece of ground than to buy a piece here and another piece there and so on, even if the Local Government Board would allow it, which they will not. The Labour Party do not condemn a house of two rooms down and two up. They know it is necessary to provide houses for childless couples and young married couples.

Mr. Knight: I think Mr. Swindall is, without intending it, throwing dust in the people’s eyes. We know what the agricultural cottages of years ago were like. They were built without concrete on the floor, and without a bathroom, and the bedrooms were in the roof. The proposed houses will be built as they should be, with bath-rooms to each one. There will be, not 76 of the smaller houses, but 16, and they will be not “two-roomed houses” but three-roomed houses. There is one very big room downstairs, and two bedrooms. The cottages will be well covered and well ventilated. They are not the agricultural cottages which Mr. Swindall refers to. Though the cottages are small, they will the more suit a small purse. They are healthy and will be appreciated by the people who live in them. I am very sorry to hear Mr. Swindall using unfair arguments to make his case clear with regard to the minority on this Council.

Mr. Swindall: I referred more particularly to the lack of accommodation in the houses being as bad as agricultural labourers’ houses.

Mr. Tomlin pointed out that the object in building the small houses was to provide for the people with small families and the older people. It was never anticipated that the people with large families would occupy the smaller houses.

Mr. Swindall: Several of these houses have sculleries without fire-places.

Mr. Spencer said he did not remember an alternative site being proposed. He had always advocated some of the houses being put up in another part of the town, but that could follow the present scheme. If Rushden could find £96,000 for the War Loan in Tank Week, there should be no difficulty about this £66,000.

The Chairman, alluding to the criticism regarding the site, said that no other site had ever been proposed.

Mr. Swindall: There was before the Selection Committee.

The Chairman said that was so, but no resolution was proposed, and the present site was carried unanimously. They had another site offered at three times the money.

Mr. Swindall: It was worth the extra money.

The Chairman: You could not build houses on that site as cheaply as on the one selected. The Local Government Board have had their eyes open as to the effect on the cost of the building and also with regard to the health of the people. The Board’s idea is that the people should live in the best room, and perhaps it is as well that the sculleries are without fire-places if it will prevent the people using them as living-rooms. I think the architect is working on the Local Government Board’s requirements. I do not bind myself down to say that we should develop the whole of this estate before we build houses in any other part of the town. These 112 houses can be built cheaper on this site than in any other part of Rushden. I am looking forward to private enterprise building elsewhere. I know the site selected is not rock-bottom, but you can get foundations there of the average depth for Rushden. We had no other choice than the present site. Houses are required, but they cannot at present be built by private enterprise. With regard to those houses shown in the plan as having only two bedrooms, those bedrooms are bigger than where there are three; they are just the houses for some people, and there are only 16 of them in the scheme. As a practical man I think these 16 will let as readily as any of them. There are things which I, as a builder, do not agree with, but I admit we want the houses. I think the Government, while they were at it, might have found the whole of the money and have owned the houses. We are quite willing as a municipal authority to carry out the work, but I think the Government might have owned the cottages. I should not advocate the Council building the houses if I thought some were going to be empty in a week or two. There are some people in the town who can afford the higher rentals and the houses they would thus vacate could be taken by the soldiers returning home.

Mr. Hornsby congratulated the Chairman on his splendid speech, and, supporting the scheme, said the sooner they got on with it the better. Before hostilities ceased they could not get a house in Rushden for love or money, and now he wondered where all the returned soldiers were putting themselves. Before long there would be considerable overcrowding in Rushden. He did not think they could improve on the present scheme; it might have its faults, and perhaps other sites might have some advantages over it in some respects, but for years he had lived on practically the same sort of soil, and he had not found himself suffering in any way. Taken as a whole, they could not improve on this site from an economical standpoint.

The scheme was then adopted without opposition, Mr. Swindall not voting, and Mr. Claridge and Mr. Clipson having previously had to leave the meeting.