ACSS511 Statutory Control Lecture 1 17/01/12 Part 2origins & evolution

Modern Britain has comprehensive systems of control over building works and development which seek to ensure the health, safety and welfare of building users and to protect the amenity of neighbours and of the public at large. However, this has not always been the case and such detailed control is a relatively recent phenomenon. This paper will outline the key stages in the evolution of the modern system of control. Early examples of control Many people assume that the first controls over building works were implemented in the wake of the Great Fire of London in 1666, but in actual fact there are several examples of attempts to impose controls which predate this.
In the twelfth century there were rules relating to the thickness and height of party walls, and rules which sought to prevent new buildings from blocking off light to neighbouring buildings. Rules existed in the thirteenth century requiring citizens to roof their houses with lead, tiles or stone so as to reduce the risk of fire spread.
There was even a regulation which required any projection from a building at first-floor level to be sufficiently high to allow people on horseback to pass under without banging their heads. Many other rules were also introduced, but there was one significant problem – most people simply ignored them. Furthermore, since there was no formal system in place to control and monitor compliance with the rules, there was not really much that the authorities could do about it. Just as in modern times, it is often the case that it takes a major disaster to occur before any real changes are implemented.
And so it was with the Great Fire of London in September 1666. The fire destroyed 80% of the city: approximately 13,200 houses and 87 churches were lost. It is claimed that only 6 people actually died in the fire but many believe the real death toll would have been much higher.
The significance of the Great Fire of London in the current context is simply that, as a direct result of the devastation, the London Building Act 1667 was introduced. The Act was very detailed and specified that only buildings constructed of brick and/or stone would be permitted. Timber was only allowed to be used for window and door frames. In addition, there were rules relating to party walls, to foundations and to roofs. Further legislation was introduced in the next 150 years which refined and added to the original legislation. One significant aspect was the establishment of the posts of District Surveyors to enforce the regulations. These, of course, were the forerunners of today’s building control surveyors The London Building Acts and their associated regulations were primarily concerned with fire safety and structural stability. As other cities outside London began to grow, similar local legislation was introduced, but there was no national system of control. Furthermore, the rules did not extend to cover other aspects of building or development which might affect public health or amenity. Indeed, as Britain became an increasingly industrial nation the general attitude seemed to be that the rules which interfered with the free market should be avoided.
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries major advances occurred in the technologies utilised in industry. New machinery was introduced which was often large and complex. Coal replaced water as the main source of power for industry. As a result, industry began to locate in towns with well established transport links to markets and ports. This period saw the major growth of cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow, Leicester, Nottingham, Bristol and many others.
Around the middle of the eighteenth century the death rate in Britain began to fall as food supplies were improved and epidemics were fewer. Many more children survived than had been the case previously, and this in turn led to more adults capable of reproduction. During the nineteenth century the population of England almost trebled: 1801 – 8.3 million 1851 – 16.7 million 1901 – 30.5 million
Alongside this massive growth there was a major shift amongst the population from the countryside to the towns. Poor agricultural workers were attracted to the new industrial towns by the prospect of better paid work and social opportunities. It is estimated that in the thirty year period between 1821 and 1851, 4 million people moved from the countryside to the towns. In 1801 less than 17% of the population lived in large towns. By 1901 it was over half the population.
Generally, the poor people from the countryside became the poor people of the towns. People had to live within walking distance of their work since there was effectively no public transport system. This meant that most housing had to be located close to the factories and mills.
Much of the housing that already existed in the towns had been middle class Georgian terraces. As hordes of people flooded into the towns the middle classes increasingly moved out to new suburbs. The houses they left behind were subdivided to create many dwellings, and the spaces between the houses were filled in to create even more.
The resultant housing was, to say the least, of a very poor standard.
As pressure grew for even more accommodation speculative builders saw an opportunity. Neither employers nor town councils saw it as their responsibility to provide housing so the speculative builders had virtually a free reign. The builders constructed long rows of housing with no paving, no internal water supply, and no sanitary facilities. From around 1830 the most common housing type in the industrial towns was the so-called ‘back-to-back’. This consisted of double rows of houses under one roof, with one side facing the street and the other side facing an alley. At the end of each street was a stand pipe and an earth closet. Apart from the end houses each house had windows on one side only.
Most houses had no sanitary facilities. Water had to be obtained from communal standpipes and toilets took the form of communal earth closets. There was virtually no water-borne sewerage. Foul waste was collected in cesspools which were not drained. Inevitably disease was rife, particularly cholera and typhoid. Both of these diseases are caused by bacteria in water, though at that time this was not understood.
In London it is estimated that there were 200 000 undrained cesspools. The Thames was effectively used as a sewer. Diseases caused the deaths of 5000 in 1832 and 14000 in 1849. Infant mortality was in the region of 135 per 1000. A study in 1854 in Soho established the connection between a cholera outbreak and a single polluted water pump. The situation was little better in other towns and cities, and often much worse. The average life expectancy in England and Wales in 1841 was 41 years. In Liverpool this was reduced to 26 years. Also in Liverpool an average of 259 children out of every 1000 died in their first year of life.
Various factors contributed to delays in implementing any changes. Firstly, those with the power to change things (i.e. Members of Parliament) were relatively unaffected by the problems. Parliament was still fairly unrepresentative of the population as a whole. Secondly, there was little scientific evidence of the cause of the problem and no real understanding of how it should be tackled. Thirdly, local government had few powers to deal with such problems and there was no effective administrative machinery. Gradually, there was a realisation that something would have to be done about the problems. It became apparent that even the more privileged members of society were falling victim to disease. Absence from work through sickness was beginning to impact on productivity. Studies by public reformers such as Sir Edwin Chadwick started to provide evidence of the causes of death and destitution. As a result of these studies, Royal Commissions and Select Committees were established to investigate possible solutions. Recommendations included the establishment of public health authorities to regulate drainage and water supply, and the introduction of controls over housing.
The effect of the act was seen in the new types of housing and street layouts, many of which still survive. Changes included wider streets, yard spaces at the rear, water supplies, and water closets. A typical style of house constructed under the new bye-laws was the so-called ‘tunnel-back’ house, which can still be found in many towns and cities today.
We have seen that, throughout the nineteenth century, conditions for the vast majority of working class people were appalling. Generally, industrialists had very little concern for their workforce, and government (both central and local) appeared powerless or unwilling to do much about the problems. Against this background there were, however, a few notable exceptions – industrialists who appeared to want to create better living conditions for their workforce. Many of them were idealists who used their wealth to provide better standards of living for employees. They moved their factories out of the congested cities to the open countryside. Here they built modern factories and created complete communities to house the workers and their families. By comparison with the housing in the towns, these communities were of a very high standard and included open spaces, schools, churches and leisure facilities.
New Lanark (Scotland) – built by Robert Owen (cotton mills)
By the end of the nineteenth century the success of the ‘model communities’ created by the industrial philanthropists was clearly visible. In addition there was much wider recognition of the benefits of better living conditions for society as a whole. The ideas which underpinned many of the successful projects were drawn together by a man named Ebenezer Howard, who developed the concept of the Garden City.
Howard’s vision was of a garden city which combined the benefits of both town and country in a single unit of about 32000 inhabitants.
The first garden city was begun in 1903 at Letchworth in Hertfordshire, and this was followed in 1919 by Welwyn Garden City. The real significance of the garden city movement lies not so much in the creation of the garden cities themselves, but in the influence which Howard’s ideas were to have on development in the twentieth century. Concepts such as planned development, zoning of land uses, accessibility by residents to amenities, employment and transport, green belts around conurbations – all of these effectively formed the basis of what we now refer to as town planning.
Despite major leaps forward during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the situation in towns and cities in the early twentieth century was little changed. Economic activity was largely concentrated in central areas, which became increasingly congested. The middle classes were moving out to new suburbs leaving most of the working classes housed in sub-standard housing. Virtually all building development was left to private enterprise.
The war had a devastating effect on British cities. Widespread bombing had destroyed thousands of homes and businesses. The government foresaw the need for redevelopment on a national scale, and commissions were appointed during the war to examine the problems and recommend action. Reports were produced on issues such as the geographical distribution of the industrial population and the problems of land use in rural areas, as well as many other development-related issues. A common theme which seemed to emerge in each of the reports was the need for some form central planning control. The immediate response to this was the appointment of a new minister under the Minister of Town and Country Planning Act 1943 to secure consistency and continuity in national policy. Furthermore the whole of the country was effectively brought under development control. The problem with the planning system at this stage was that most legislation was, in effect, regulatory i.e. it was concerned with regulating the activities of developers. The war meant that large areas of the country were in need of reconstruction, so consideration had to be given to how and where that reconstruction should take place. In other words, there was a need for positive planning . These various factors combined in the post war period and lead to the enactment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947.
This act is a genuine landmark in the history of town planning because it established the framework for the modern planning system. The essential points of the act are: County Councils and County Borough Councils were to become local planning authorities (LPAs) Every LPA was required to prepare a development plan which was to indicate how land was to be used for a period of 20 years ahead. No development was to take place without planning permission. The Minister of Town and Country Planning was given extensive powers – he had to approve all development plans and receive appeals against refusal of planning permission. Provisions were included for dealing with historic buildings, trees and woodlands, advertisements etc.
With so many local authorities each implementing slightly different bye-laws it became very difficult for builders operating over a wide area to keep up with local variations. Consequently a major piece of enabling legislation was introduced in the form of the Public Health Act 1961. This made provision for a Minister to make national building regulations. The first regulations were The Building Regulations 1965 which replaced all local bye-laws when they came into effect in February 1966. The exception was London, where the London Building Acts (as amended) remained in force. The introduction of a national set of building regulations was a major step forward in establishing a unified approach to building control. However, the regulations themselves were actually quite difficult to understand since they were written in very ‘legalistic’ language. The building control picture was further complicated by the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 which superseded parts of the Public Health Act 1961 for certain buildings.
A major review of the building regulations was launched in the early 1980s, and the outcome of this was a recommendation that the law as stated in the regulations should be separated from its interpretation as set out in the ‘deemed to satisfy’ clauses. The result of this was the enactment of the Building Act 1984, which effectively replaced all other legislation covering the control of building works. The new legislation was to apply to all of England and Wales, including London.

ACSS511 Statutory Control Lecture 1 17/01/12 Part 2origins & evolution

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Último

Último (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

ACSS511 Statutory Control Lecture 1 17/01/12 Part 2origins & evolution

Notas del editor