Housing Delay at Conisborough

August 1927

Sheffield Independent – Friday 12 August 1927

Housing Delay at Conisborough

Reply to Citizens’ Association.

The Conisborough housing situation was summed up Mr. A. Roberts at meeting of the Urban, Council, when drew attention to the fact that the Housing and Town Planning Committee had recommended that the Council support the resolution passed at the conference held in London of the National Housing and Town Planning Council urging the Government to continue the housing subsidy at the present figure.

Mr. Roberts said that taking their own district, it was imperative that the subsidy should the continued. In 1919 in old Conisborough alone, a census showed there were 90 houses unfit for habitation and 94 which were considered unfit, so that there were, altogether, a total of 184 houses which not considered reasonably fit for human habitation.

700 Houses Short,

At that time it was estimated that 1,200 houses were needed.

There had been a large influx into the district, and since1919 only about 500 houses had been built. Therefore, he thought that they, a local authority should support the resolution to keep the subsidy, at least, the present figure.

“We are 700 houses short.” he added. Housing was national question. A local authority situated as they were should make some protest against reducing the subsidy.

The minutes, including the recommendation in support the resolution, were passed.

Mr. Webster replied to the criticism level against the Citizens’ Association at the last meeting of the Council with respect their action in sending a letter to the Ministry of Health regarding the alleged delay in the Conisborough direct labour housing scheme.

Delay Not Justified?

Mr Webster maintained that the delay in the housing scheme was not justified, and that the cost the ratepayers was more than the anticipated saving on the scheme. He was not antagonistic to direct labour if it was proved that it was better than the contract scheme. Mr. A. Roberts, chairman the Housing Committee, said that it would only have been an act of courtesy on the part of Conisborough Citizens’ Association to write to the Council before writing to the Ministry.

He could safely say that when the Ministry received the reply of the Council they would be satisfied that the Citizens’ Association were wrong and that the scheme would prove to good and safe investment.