THE EVOLUTIONOF THE

ENGLISH BUILDING REGULATIONS

1840-1914

Volume11
THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH BUILDING
REGULATIONS 1840 - 1914

Roger Henley Harper

MA., Dip. Arch., (Cantab), A. R. I. B. A.

The second of two volumes

A Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

presented to
The Faculty of Architectural Studies
The University of Sheffield

June 1978
CONTENTS

(Volurne II)

VI Model and Provincial Building By-laws 266

1875 - 1890
342
VII London : the pressure for change
1875 - 1891
VIII The London Building Act : 1894 389

Ix Model and Provincial Building By-laws 441

18go - iqi4

x London : Fire, Steel and Reinforced Concrete 508

1895 - 1914
Conclusion 558

Bibliography 592
THE EVOLUTION OF THE ENGLISH BUILDING REGULATIONS 1840 - 1914

CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF CHAPTERS AND SUMMARY INDEX

PROVINCIAL BEGS. and PUBLIC HEALTH LONOON REGULATIONS

1 Cholera 23 Health of Towns Report -1340-

Is
30 Lord Notmanbis Building Bills
35 Enquiry into Regulation of Buildings
-- Proposals for amending L. B. A. 67
5 joguirv into State at taree Towns - Analysis of M. B. A. 1144 71
125 The Local Act 1845- Streets 73
Structure 74
123 Musidpal Reform 13Z By-laws -
Ventilation - Drainage 17
134, Towns Improvement Classes Act 1947 -
so
141 Health of Towns Bill - 145 Public Health Act -- Course of M. B. A. 1844 - 1955
-- M. B. A. in practict 96
-1850- Fort 87
-- Structure 32
Health 99

1855-
Analysis of M. B. A. 1855 16Z
Streets - Disinage 164
1
147 Local Government Act Structure 165
168
225 Analysis of Form at By-laws -- Ventilation
226 streets- Structure -1850-
229 ventil alhn --
234 Bra; nags
Course of M. B.A. 1855-1875 159

230 prov; nc; al Building By-laws 1050- 1675 1865- IV

240 10 Health
DeVOICIP11191113 Legislation M. B. A. to practlice
- 1870 - F(re 16Z
-- Structure 189
Health 196
252 Towards a National Building Act

-1875-
Ts7 Towards a Rational Building Act for change 342
1875 Plessoles
173 lotrodurtiort of Model BY-laws 1376-7
276 Model By-laws 1877
277 Strolls Amendment Act 1818 slid BY-18*3-117& 344
278 Structure
283 vantilatime
234 Drainage logo-
Amendment Act 1282 and BY-IaW3,13811 349
VI US Course of Model By-laws 1873-82 VII
289 _. 1892-84
294 Royal Call. an HoNsing of Working Classes.
M. B. A. and ByAswsý11175-81 357
1385- Fire 367
Public Health Act I Buildings in Streets) Act Structure 370
301
301 By-laws in practice. 1286- So. Health 371
r 04 Sheffield and lhit Model By-laws.
as Public Health- Amendment Act. " 1890 London County I Central Powers) Act 1833 and 353
441 Model By-laws madeafter Public Health Amend.Act By-laws 13
41
All Street$ PrOude 1891-4 383
441 Structure London Building Act. 1354 403 IVIII
Ventilation. Drainage Streets*Structure 0 406, Ve"tilat ' 03 Ind DflinUe 410
444
1895 Initial reaction ta- L. B. A. 1894. 503

Fire. and the Amending Act of 1905 512

444 Rural Model By-laws"ISSO-1901.
IX
451 81-laws in 11factice,flegional variations, Cassstudies,
1390-1501.
45S Ptessords for change. ISOZ-1314. L. B. A. IAmendmerit) Act. 1905. 52z

Steel and feinfoited concrete flame structure

By-laws in practice, Regionalvariations, Cast studies, $24
466 and the L. C.C. (General Powers) Act. 1909%
t9ol - 1314. Isla

Case histories, 1895- 1914. 532

1472 1
Deal. Committte Enquiry on Building By-laws, 1914 Matters of Desiqq and-Reoulation
CHAPTER VI MODEL AND PROVINCIAL BUILDING BY-LAWS 1875 - 1890

Towards a National Buildina Act

The Public Health Act of 1875 marks the summit of the movement towards

consolidation in public health legislation* With the consolidation

successfully completed, (with the exception of London)q it was in-
evitable that the same call for consolidation and uniformity should be
heard from the area of building regulationj since it was so intimately
bound up with the public health movement. We have noted the signs of
the growth of this movement in the last chapter and we can now turn to

consider its realisation, both in theory and in practice, in the years

following the Public Health Act.

Until the appearance of the Model By-laws in 1877, it is clear that the

basis of the idea of a national building act related to the principle

of utilising the Metropolitan Building Act as a starting point, even

though it was already twenty years old. After the appearance of the

Model By-laws however - 'Which were, though not so extensive in their

range of controls, nevertheless more stringent in their technical

requirements than the London Act there is a marked change in emphasis,

-
and the idea of using the Model By-laws as the basis of a national act

becomes more dominant.

Let C. F*Hayward explain the view as it was seen in 1876:

"Surely", he said, "if a certain set of general rules were necessary
in London..., surely the same rules might be applicable all over the
country, subject to such slight modifications which might be provided
for in by-laws, as local circumstances (1).
might render necessary"
The theme was continued by the R. I. B. A. at their General Conference in

June that year. J. Clarke of Liverpool and J-Honeyman from Glasgow both

gave papers entitled 'General Building Regulations for the United

Kingdom' and both took the Metropolitan Building Act as the basis for

their proposals. Clarke suggested the removal of some of the older

and less workable clauses in that Act and the addition of regulations
for iron, concrete and timber (the latter, of course, still being

operated in his home town), and the incorporation in one document of all
the other miscellaneous acts relating to building (2) -a plea so often

266
made by architects but never pursued by the legislature. Honeyman's

paper was more thorough, and although he based his proposals on the
Metropolitan Building Act, he strongly advocated the removal of all

'sanitary regulations' from the new Act (it will be recalled that in

fact the sanitary regulations in London were also, to a large extent,

contained in the parallel Metropolis Local Management Act of 1855).

Only regulations for public safety should be included, he maintained,

and matters such as street widths, sewers, nuisances and overcrowding

were "purely sanitary regulations", not affected by construction and

should be covered by by-laws under the Public Health Act. He hoped

that too-much detail would be avoided and, in order to encourage

invention within the building trade, he opposed the idea of too much
'paternal Government interference'. This, of course, was a character-

istic Victorian principle, all reflected in Honeyman's own words:

ItUndue interference invention,
discourage diminishes proper respons-
ibility and self-reliance, and is in every way inimical to those
principles of sound political economy to the recognition and application
its pre-eminence (3).
of which our country owes among nations"

Looking at the current state of building regulation in 1876, Honeyman

made a clear and accurate assessment of the position. Every borough

appeared to be making its own by-laws, often regardless of each other

and sometimes of the old 1858 Form of By-laws. Where the regulations

were made under special local acts, it was apparantly invariable for

the Corporation to reserve powers to by-laws for themselves. In

make
the minds of the civic rulers, Honeyman noted:
"a sort of unaccountable but distinctly pronounced jealousy of the
outside public with a disinclination to be guided byq or even to
listen to, their (4)
any professional men, except own officials".
He was therefore still prepared to the London Act as the best
recommend

even though it was rather out of date, because the '?highest

models
talent" had been calledin to help frame it - unlike the
professional

recent local by-laws". Honeyman saw no problem in framing a general

to the for local (provided

act cover modifications needed variations

they were not too numerous or detailed):

"We need certain Idesideratal not necessarily affected by locality,

but which are necessary in the interest of the community and which must
be made paramount to local prejudice or ignorance" (5)-

In his proposals for a 'Boroughs Building Act' he would exclude there-

fore certain 'sanitary regulations', but bring back some of the con-

structional matters then currently residing in the Metropolis Local

267
Management Act - the draining of courtsq habitable cellars, vaults

under the road and hoardings and scaffoldings. He saw no need to

exempt any buildings from the Act, and further suggested new regula-
tions to cover buildings on 'formed ground', for iron pillars and

girders (but not timberg surprisingly), for stone walls and to further

increase the size of buildings which could be built without a fireproof

division beyond the 216,000 cu. ft. limit.

In the discussion following Honeyman's paper, it became clear however,

that not everyone favoured the idea of using the London Act as a
basis. A Mr. Porter identified certain omissions which Honeyman had

overlooked - certain sanitary regulations, the control of concrete

foundations and the regulation of timber sizes. But T. Roger Smith

wanted to keep London out of a national building act altogether,

principally on the grounds of the value of the unique District Surveyors

system. They were all practising architects and therefore more

familiar with building than a mere paid official within a local

authority. With a note of caution which history has since proved to

have been justified, he added that if officials who were not in

practice as well were allowed to carry out the Act, then architects
"would find an amount of friction be unendurable" (6).
which would
Arthur Cates, who had just seen the first draft of the Model By-laws,

was the only person to suggest the possibility that they might in fact

become the basis of a new national set of regulations. But the main

body of opinion at the conference still held to the idea of a national

statute, and they unanimously carried the motion that "this meeting

approves in principle that a general Building Act regulation applicable

(within certain limits) throughout the kingdom is desirable". (7)

Even the R. I. B. A. Committee which was established to consider the

proposed Model By-laws in 1876 tended to support the principles of the

London system, although they did not follow Honeyman's lead in separat-
ing the sanitary from the constructional regulations. They reported:
IlIt is
essential that all building regulations, whether of a sanitary
or practical nature, should be codified and ultimately comprised in a
single documentq having the same legal authority in the provinces as
the Metropolitan Building Act has in London. All previous legislation$
whether of a public or local characterg and all the existing by-lawsl
would be repealed or would be superseded, and a definite and uniform
system would be established throughout the country" (8).

268
The production of the Model By-laws in 1876 and 1877 is discussed in

more detail in the following sections but even shortly after their

publication in July 1877, there was still support for a national act.
'The Builder" noted for example in October:
"if the authorities of districts throughout the United Kingdom are
permitted to make their own by-laws, with the confirmation and approval
of the Local Government Board in London, one Imperial Act, embracing
the general building regulations of Great Britain will surely
suffice" (9).
Naturally it took a few months for the full significance and implica-
tions of the new by-laws to register, but from, 1878 onwards it becomes
clear that they were gaining the approval of the professionals (though

not so much support authorities from the local

- except notably
Birmingham) because they were seen to be (within the limits imposed
by the Public Health Act) to be comprehensive and well produced.
J. Douglas Mathews in March 1878 for example, gave-some support and
approval for the new by-laws at a meeting of the Architectural
Associationg and this was reinforced by the recognition of the in-
creasingly important role of the Local Government Board as the effective
central control:
"Although the system of centralisation is rapidly growing, often at
the expense of local interests, a central authority has many advant-
ages in obtaining information not possessed by smaller bodies, and
the power to require compliance with its regulations throughout the
country" (10)
These powers for compliance, being under the permissive framework of
the Public Health Act, were however not so effective as Mathews
intimated.

It was Mathews again who delivered the paper entitled "Model By-laws as

a basis of a General Building Act" at the R. I. B. A. General Conference

6 1878 (11). This the

on June paper marks the confirmation of swing

away from the London Act as a basispnow that the Model By-laws could

be seen by all to be more up-to-date and altogether a sounder base.

Mathews was not perhaps the best advocate for the Model By-laws since$

having spent many years as the District Surveyor for Stoke Newington,

he was loathe to acknowledge the weaknesses in the London Act -

"which for many years past has been found sufficient in practice", and

he still supported, for example, the concept of the hermetically sealed

drain and the use of the D-trap, both now prevented by the Model By-

laws. Mathews, like a number of others in the architectural profession,

269
viewed the dominance of the medical profession in these matters of

sanitary regulations with some alarm - "the medical profession have

had a little too much their in framing these clauses". (12)

own way
But it will be recalled that the medical-profession had acted more in

concert, particularly under Dr. Liddle's leadership, than had the

architects in the earlier years when these regulations were in an

embryonic state. Mathews accepted however the need for controls on

the use of timber, even though here he was right to point out that

they would be difficult to formulate "as quality of materials would

differ" (13). This was a problem underlying the timber regulations
in Liverpool and there was at this time, of course, no nationally

accepted standards to control the material. He also correctly pointed

out that a general Building Act, based on the Model By-lawsq should

also include alterations to old buildings (an area omitted from the

by-laws because of the limitations of the main Public Health Act under

which they were made), though in his call for controls on party wall

rights and dangerous structures he was again reflecting the London

practice. The drainage regulationsg which were already extensive even

in the first Model By-laws, were considered by Mathews to be unsuitable

for incorporation in a national building act for the reasons

- not

put forward by Honeyman, but because:

"Sanitary science can hardly be said to be so thoroughly understood

that laws now made will of necessity be of the same value in twenty
years time, and a building act should be so drafted to make constant
amendment unnecessary" (14).

In part this was correct the drainage regulations were to constantly

-

change as new and improved techniques were developedg but it was also

true that these changes were facilitated by the very fact that they

were not in a rigid building act, and that the by-laws provided a

better mechanism to accept changes since there was no need to refer

back to Parliament for amendments.

The tension between local and central control was, as we have already

noted in earlier chapters, a constant force underlying the scope and

of the building regulations. Although Mathews had indicated

operation
in March his approval for central control, by June he appears to

have reconsidered and modified his view:

"Although in some things centralisation may be good and advisable,

yet if the power of conducting its own business is withdrawn from
each town local interest and pride will in a great measure be lost"

270
- and he quoted the example of the administration of the Poor Law,

where central authority had superseded local, as an obvious example.

But the move towards central control was a continuing force, as the

increasing authority of the Model By-laws and the Local Government

Board was to show, and this fact was difficult for Mathews and others

of his generation to recognise.

When Mathews' paper was published in the R. I. B. A. Transactions, two

other relevant papers were appended. One was from Honeyman, who
was still pressing for the exclusion of all 'sanitary regulations'

from a national building act; the other was from Boult of

Liverpool (109 whose commonsense and perspicacity in these matters
we have already seen (see page 237).

Boult returned to basic principles. Of course the regulations should

control stability, fire riskst ventilation and drainage, but they

should also be few in number and elastic to meet the needs of differing

local conditions. They should also - and here was again a character-
istic Victorian belief - "interfere as little as possible in all
trading operations". But Boult went further and challenged some of

the then widely held views about the relationship between health and

building. Sheer population density alone did not, he maintained,

necessarily result in physical detriment 11as is hastily assumed".

-
The mortality rate in model lodging houses, 1500 (sic) per
at persons

acre, was in fact less in areas of small houses at 250 persons per

acre. Furthermore, the health of the community was more dependent on

food, clothing and personal habits than on the arrangement and con-

struction of dwellings. Both these observations contained much that

was novel and relevant for the time. His enthusiasm for back-to-back

housing is not so easy to uphold however. Again, he stated the

mortality rate was low - but on what precise statistical basis he did

not make clear - and he therefore had the temerity to question

whether an open space on both sides of a dwelling were necessarily

essential. "The advantage of open spaces around buildings appears

to be over-estimated and misunderstood" and he certainly had a

-
substantial quantity of such back-to-back houses in Northern England
.4
from which to judge. 'Through houses, produced draughts, and indeed

it was rare, Boult claimed, to find all the windows open at once.
(The fact that there was also a seepage rate through closed
even

271
windows and a- house had chimneys as ventilators, was not however

mentioned).

Turning to drainage, Boult rightly stressed the importance of a well

constructed water trap (a long standing requirement in Liverpool) and

the need for proper ventilation for the drainage system. Furthermore,

he correctly emphasised the need for uninterrupted drainage runs

without a multiplicity of traps and intervening cesspools, because

of an over anxiety to prevent the admission of sewer gas into a

dwelling. Finally, he recommended the extension of the London District

Surveyor system throughout the country, and made the practical

suggestion that in rural areas, where it would be difficult to justify

a separate Surveyor for each small authority, the authorities should

combine and appoint an architect as the Surveyor for a group of

authorities.

In spite of these calls for a national building act, no definite

proposals for such a measure came from the Government, and it became

clear that no national statute would be forthcoming. This was

because the emphasis was in favour of a system of local by-laws - to

acknowledge the fact of local politics and administration - yet

controlled as far as possible by central authority in the form of
the Local Government Board. Further, statute law wasq as we have seen,

a very rigid legislative device, and it was becoming clear that it was

not the best device to handle the complex matter of building

regulation - even the London Building Act had already spawned a

number of by-laws itself. A good deal of expertise had gone into the

Model By-laws and they were more extensive than any previous controls
(within the limits set by the Public Health Act) - the time and

cost which would have been involved in translating them into statute
law would not have been desirable. With the machinery for the

approval of local by-laws set in the Local Government Board's handsl

they could be both unified and flexible enough to meet any local
variations. The Model By-laws themselves therefore became, in a

Sense, the national building regulations.

Ideas of promoting a national building act gradually subsided)and

interest turned to focus and concentrate on the content and operation

272-
of the Model By-71aws. The desire for uniformity throughout the

country was still maintained however, and the theme was to be taken

up again by Boult in 1882. Before moving to that point however, we

must now consider the production and the contents of the Model By-

laws themselves.

** *

Introduction of the Model By-laws 1876-7

Although the 1875 Public Health Act had, under Section U7, extended
the range of subjects for which building by-laws could be made, the
idea of producing a set of Model By-laws was not immediately taken

up by the Local Government Board. Indeed, during the year that the
Act was passed, they proceeded to confirm some 69 series of local
by-laws which were based essentially on the Form of By-laws of 1858
(17), but in September they decided to write to all the urban sanitary
authorities to explain the consequences of the new Act (18). There

were a number of sections which touched on building, section 155 and

156 for example, which provided for the first time that if only the

front, rather than the whole building, was taken down, then the

authority could prescribe a new building line - with financial

penalties for infringement. This is a matter to which we shall return

later in this chapter (see page 300). Section 157 was the principal
section controlling by-laws, and here the principal innovation was

power to control chimney construction though not hearths (see page 27S). (1
-

The original move for a new set of Model By-laws appears to have come

from the local authorities themselves least that was the official
- at

view put forward by the Local Government Board (20), with no doubt

some awareness of the sensitive attitude of local authorities to any

sign of central government domination. Yet it was also a deeper

reflection of the general move towards consolidation which had

characterised the Public Health Act itself and, as we have seen in

our discussion of the moves towards a national building act, the topic

of consolidation and uniformity was in the forefront of discussion in

professional circles at the time. In the discussion following

273
T. Roger Smith's lengthy lecture on the Metropolitan Building Act at
the Architectural Association in March 1876, it was P. Gordon Smith,
the architect to the Local Government Board, who gave the first
hint of the new by-laws when he said "an effort was now being made
to bring them [i. e. the building by-laws] as much as possible into

uniformity under the Public Health Act of 1871+0[sicl (21)-

The R. I. B. A. had, as we have seen, included the topic of the General

Building Act in its General Conference in June 1876. In the Springg

whilst the preparations for this conference were under way, a

particularly controversial matter arose which was to lead the R. I. B. A.
into the heart of the production of the new Model By-laws. This was
the matter of certain local authorities requiring architects to

submit elevations, as well as plans and sectionsl for approval. This

touched the sensitive nerve ends of the architects, implying inter-
ference in their privileged area of aesthetics as well as matters of
copyrightq and the R. I. B. A. Council reacted strongly. They sought
the first hand experience of members throughout the country, wrote
to the Local Government Board in protest, and sent a memorandum to
the Home Secretary in April 1876, complaining bitterly about the

matter (22). John Whichcord, as Chairman of the General Conference,

referred to this correspondence with the Local Government Board,

correspondence which had revealed that the Board had a new series of
Model By-laws under consideration. A copy had just been sent to the
R. I. B. A. and Sclater-Booth, President of the Board, had invited

suggestions and criticisms from the General Conference. The Council

in turn passed a resolution calling on the R. I. B. A. Council to appoint

a committee to consider this matter, which the Council duly accepted

and also offered its services to the Local Government Board (23).

The draft of the new model was therefore in the hands of the R. I. B. A.

by the time of the General Conference, and Arthur Cates made a point
of referring to them in one of the discussions. Although he

obviously had not had much time to study them thoroughly, he generally

welcomed them since they were a positive move towards the desired

goal of uniformity. But two points concerned him - one that the by-
laws should be consistent within the terms of the Act, and the other
that they were perhaps too strictly limited by the framework of

274
Section 157 of the Act. He correctly foresaw that this limitation
might well preclude the possibility of the scope of the by-laws being
extended to further key areas in building and he advised the R. I. B. A.
to bear that point in mind when they came to study the proposals (24).

The Committee which the R. I. B. A. established to study the by-laws and

to advise the Local Government Board (25) immediately contacted all
the local societies to obtain first hand accounts of the current
local by-laws. They then analysed their findings and made the following

suggestions. They regretted the limitations imposed by Section 157

of the Public Health Act (confirming the point raised by Cates), but

in general approved the Model By-laws and stressed their support for

the need for the universal application of the new code. They further

emphasised the need - so familiar even tody - for all the relevant
legislation (the Towns Improvement Clauses Act, the Public Health

Act and the Chimney Sweepers Act) to be brought together in one

In detail, they (but these
document. more sought controls on hearths

were not to come, as we shall see, until 18909 since hearths could

not be interpreted as being part of the wall structure under section

157)., and also controls on timber scantling sizes. Dangerous structures,

the rights of owners of party walls, controls for existing buildings

and the idea of the payment of fees for administration of the by-laws

local based
by authorities, were all raised - but again these were all

on the London Building Acts and were outside the scope of the Public

Health Act (26). A number of relatively technical points were

minor
incorporated - all, as Charles Barry noted with satisfaction Itwithout

hampering the action of professional men" (27)-

vexatiously

The Local Government Board had hoped to have the Model By-laws ready
by the end of 1876, but it had encountered what it called "some

important questions" (not least those raised by the R. I. B. A. ) and

these had, as they saidl "compelled us to proceed with exceptional

and deliberation" (28). Meanwhile the Board continued to receive
care
building by-laws for approval from local authorities, and a further
65 sets were duly approved in 1876 - but without, of course, the

benefit of the model set as a guide. It was not until July 1877 that

the Model By-laws in their final form, were ready and issued to the

urban authorities. Acknowledging the great help received from the

275
R. I. B. A., the Local Government Board pointed out in its Annual Report

for 1877-8 that it had taken great care in their formulation, so

that they should "invite confidence", have "strict conformity to

legal principles", be "suitable for general operation" and further

that "it was of manifest importance that in this Csanitaryl respect

the regulations of the code should be distinctly practical, and that

the local authorities should be induced to look upon the model

clauses as indicating approved methods" (29). This explains the

elaboration of the detailed functional character of the sanitary

clauses and also confirms the strong educative functiong which turned

the by-laws into something nearer a technical handbook rather than

mere guidelines to basic principles of performance.

The Model By-laws were therefore the product of considerable care and

attention to both the sanitary requirements and the technical cap-

abilities of the building trade. They reflected the lowest common

denominator of building construction in the latter half of the nine-
teenth century, and whilst being detailed and incorporating certain
improvements, were not over-stringent though at the time they were
-
seen by many provincial towns as being (30)-
over-oppressive

What was new and what was generally welcomed was the apparent acknow-
ledgement from all the sides involved that it was valuable and
important to maintain a free technical discussion of the contents of
the by-laws, and that this was now accepted as a two way process
between the public and the legislature:

"Neither the Government nor the people direct public opinion or make
by-laws. It is discussion, action and reaction between the two which
brings about stable progress". (31)

This change of attitude marks the tone of the new period of building

regulation. The technical aspects could no longer be handled by the

legislature by itself - the complexities of building were demanding

more specialised knowledge - and the value of open discussion was

recognised and accepted.

The Model By-laws of 1877

This section analyses the contents of the Model By-lawst identifying

276
the main innovations and changes from earlier standards, and it
discusses the reaction to them in their earliest years. The analysis
follows the sequence of streets (32), structure, space for ventilation
and drainage, and should be read in conjunction with Table 8.

Streets (Table 8, sheet 1)

The 1858 Form of By-laws was the source for the dimensions for streets
widths, but a change of definition was made. A carriage road - 36,011
overall - was a street over 1001011 long, and a non carriage road -
241011 wide - was a street less than 1001011 long and was used as a

secondary means of access to a building. The widths of the actual

road and footpaths were new regulations. The width of the roadway

at 241011 was apparently designed to enable three vehicles to pass

side by side (33). The most elaborate and detailed set of controls

were set for drainage falls and the height of kerbs above the road

channels - all corresponding to the London clauses, but of a slightly

lower standard. (e. g. clause 7 set dimensions of Yt min and 7" max

for the height of the footpath above the channel, whilst the Metrop-

olitan by-laws had 4" and 811 respectively). No provision was made
for street sewerage in the Model By-laws, although the Public Health

Act had. allowed by-laws to be made for this purpose. The Local

Government Board explained that such controls depended to such a great

extent on the varying circumstances of the localities that such a

model set would be of little use (34). The requirement for streets
to have only one end open perpetuated the cul-de-sac, whilst London

again maintained the more stringent requirement for a street to have

two fully open entrances.

Even at the time, there seems to have been no known reason for the

discrepancies in the variety of street widths, both between

various
London and the Model By-laws and between the Model By-laws and the

provincial towns, other than the firmly held traditional standards of

the various parts of the country (35). Two points of interest were

raised in criticisms at the time - one was that there was no control

over mews.$where people -could still live over stables without restric-
tion, and secondlythat there was no control over the actual direction
(36). This latter Point anticipated
of streets a more sensible

277
planning control - relating streets to slopes, to each other and
indeed to the sun. This would have been a significant elaboration
of clause 3, but implications at the time would have been profound.
The interference with 'natural' rights of freedom for the individual

and with the density conscious estate developer would not have been

acceptedq not least of all in political circles.

Structure (Table 8, sheet

Under the new by-laws for foundations, the builder now had to clear
the site of all unsuitable material and he had also to lay down a
layer of asphalte or a 611 bed of concrete. The ashphalte layer was,
as 'The Builder' noted, open to evasion, since it would prove to be

of little use if it was not itself laid on a solid bed (37)- Concern

was also expressed at the cost of a 61t slab (38), 411 being considered
adequate by many (39), but the 611 thickness was to remain as the

standard.

The formula for the size of footings (see Table 8, sheet 14. )
was recast
but the model clause did not say that the footing had to be of the

same material as the wall, as in London, nor was there any clear in-

dication in clause 16 of the size of the concrete foundation under the

footings.

An attempt by the Model By-laws to control the

specification of cements

and mortars in clause il was hailed as an improvement (40). But

otherwise the controls on materials were not severe. Stone was still

allowed for templates, blocks and slabs - ?Von which still more
treacherous iron is to be laid" given for the
- and no controls were
(41). No real the
quality of the stone attempt was made to resolve
difficult question of fireproof construction. As 'The Builder' noted
"No structure is fireproof, or even fireresisting, which depends for

support upon ordinary stone or naked iron". Concrete was the material

preferred by 'The Builder' for fireproof work "the framers of the

-
Building Acts and Model By-laws should really make a note of things

generally known" (42);. The word 'incombustible' replaced the word

'fireproof' of the earlier acts - Captain Shaw would no doubt$ have

preferred 'fire resisting'. Fire-stopping within floors, between

278
joists and partitions, was introduced in an effort to prevent the

rapid spread of flame within these voids - but some critics felt that
this was an impediment to proper ventilation and would lead to the
formation of dry-rot between the voids in the floor (43). 'The
Builder', however, supported the idea, suggesting that it be extended
to ensure solid floors and partitions. This had the backing of
Captain Shaw. and the journal also referred to a statement made in
",
1793 by the 'Associat_iýd., Architectsl to give strength to their cause
"the great principle of prevention is to stop the progress and
circulation of the air in all parts of the building concealed from

the eye" (44). Yet the hollow timber floor, and partition, remains
with us today.

Concrete, although not specifically mentioned, could now be used for

wallsq provided the walls were made the same thickness as brick walls.
This was an advance over the London legislation, but concrete could

still be made with lime, rather than with cement, thereby producing
a stronger composition (45)-

Wood was not explicitly forbidden in walls in the Model By-laws, as

it was in the Metropolitan Building Act, although clause 31 in the

model set did state that no timber, other than bressummers or joists,

could be built into a party wall. This particular clause provided

a good example of the perverse and ignorant attitude of the local

councillors of the time. The term 'any plate, block, brick or plug

caused Councillor Bussell of Kingston upon Thames in 1878 to

of wood'

ask "how could a man put up a wall without a brick? " to which the

Mayor patiently answered that it was meant to refer to a 'brick of

wood'. "Any builder would have known that, but it could prove

ambiguous to the legal mind" (46).

--I

The thickness of walls was based on the schedule in the Metropolitan

Building Act of 1855 and% as a comparison Table 8 sheet 11 and

of
Table 6 sheet 9 reveals, there is a close resemblance in a number of

areas, but the Model By-laws were an improvement since they gave a
finer selection with more categories, and were therefore more flexible

in the range of dimensions offered. In general the Model By-laws

moved more in the direction of greater solidity than did their London

279
counterpart (47). This variation was queried by a number of critics -
was the London act really so far astray they asked? (48) In the Model
,,
By-laws a two storey wall could be 911 thick, but in London a 911wall
could rise to 251011, thereby allowing a three storey building - more
generous again than the new by-laws (49).

Again, in the model, cross walls now had to be taken up to the top of
the topmost storey, whereas in London they were considered acceptable
at two thirds the height of the building, although this was to alter in

1894 to be nearer the model by-law regulation. This need to rise to

the top of the topmost storey was considered to be unnecessarily

severe - as J. D. Mathews pointed out, its structural effectiveness

really ceased above the level of the wall plate in the external wall (50)-

There were two anomalies in the wall thickness regulations in the Model
By-laws. One was the faýt that although the schedule went up to a
height of 1001011, there was nothing to prevent higher walls being
built. This was also the case in London. Mr. Hankeyj for example, was
taking his flats in Queen Anne's Gate 140,01, (51)-
currently up to over
The other anomaly was the inconsistent terminology for brick sizes.
The Model By-laws referred to 911,13-12-11and 1811 (as multiples of

whilst London had 82111,1311 and 2611 (rather than 22-gllt and 27")t there

being no apparent reason for this discrepancy (52).

Party walls continued to take the same wall thickness as the corres-

ponding external wall, following the precedent of the Metropolitan

Building Act of 1855. Nevertheless, it was possible for the thickness

to be reduced in flues in party walls variation, since it

-a curious

a point of danger where a greater thickness would seem to have

was
been logical (53). In France, no flues were permitted in the
more

party wall, which had to be 1811 thick throughout its height. But as

'The Builder' notedl the English party wall was longer as a result

of our narrower fronted taller houses, and a thicker wall would be

"unnecessarily extravagant". This was considered to be reasonable

in this country so long as English houses continued to be built on the

'vertical plan's but if the 'horizontal system be imminent' (i. e.

flats)% then the Parisian formula might be more appropriate, maintaining

a certain thickness of solid material between each block. (54) The
possibility of flats on the 'horizontal system' received no acknowl-

edgement from the framers of the Model By-laws, and the London Act had

handled the matter in what 'The Builder' called "a magnificently con-
temptuous fashion". New fLats were already under construction, in

Parliament Street "on the Parisian model" - but still with timber

floors. "In none of the great cities of Europe are floor joists and
boards, such as are daily constructed in London, to be found" (55)-

The party wall was more accurately defined in the Model By-laws than

in the London Act, but the model made no reference to party

structures - i. e. horizontal party arches and floors - as did London,

and this "just when the notion of horizontality of arrangement in

houses is getting so much talked of" (56). One regulation which was
included howevert and which was not in the London Act, was that which

prevented openings being formed in party walls where one building was

carried up higher than its neighbour (57).

The damp proof course was now accepted and included, unlike the London

Act (58). Its belated appearance was welcomed, but there were

reservations. 'The Builder' could not see how it would protect the

horizontal face of a stone plinth and also pointed out that the weight

of a stone building would probably squeeze out an asphalte damp proof

course. 'The Builderls' alternative solution was based on a French

precedent and included two courses of brick laid in bitumen and gravel
(59). The height of the damp proof course at Of was considered by one

to be too low (60)

- and one may recall the earlier proposals
writer
121t had been suggested (see page 19Z). A more critical problem
where
was that of incorporating a damp proof course in the basement or

wall, and again there was the familiar complaint of the inter-
cellar
ference with the shopkeeping trade, if the introduction of a high

damp proof course was to mean a flight of steps up to a shop front door
(61). The problem of the basement could be solved, of course, by the
use of an external open "arealt adjacent to the wall (62), but the idea

of a cavity construction or a vertical damp proof course in this

situation was not to be made until later (see page 291). The problem
of the shop floor level and steps was also later resolved, to a
certain degree, by a form of miniature open area immediately under
the threshold (see page 291).

281
The problem of projections, onde so complicated in the London Acts,

now turned on the briefest of descriptions in clause 13. It was

decidedly vague, and the precise definition of an 'architectural decora-
tion' was unfortunately absent. Was a corbelled-out bay window an
architectural decoration or not? (63) The regulation of openings in

external walls, in clause 239 was very close to that of London, but
the builder was allowed a little more discretion in the model code.
No reference was made for example, to a minimum proportion of supporting
pier between the openings in each storey.

Since a timber building, if only 101011 away from another building,

could be exempt from the by-laws altogether, the requirement for a

building to have parapet walls when it was within 1510" of another,

was clearly necessary (64)pbut the actual effectiveness of the
parapet in preventing fire spread was again questioned., and it was
felt that a fireproof eaves would suffice equally well - and not be

so susceptible to damp penetration (65). The parapet took a long

time to die the 3'0" parapet for (66),

- warehouses was still accepted

but its use in domestic work was lessening. In the very year of the

Model By-laws, 1877, Slough had altered its by-laws, since the

parapet had proved to be a constant source of damp penetration, except

with the use of lead - "an excessively expensive material for small
house work", it was stated. In the building boom of the periodg of

which Slough was eager to take its share, the worthy Council quickly
bent before this pressure and altered the old by-law to allow the

party wall to come up to the underside of the slates. 11A questionable

amendment" wrote Godwin in 'The Builder', but then he was only

reflecting the long standing Loondon tradition (67). To others, such

as the younger District Surveyor, Thomas Blashill, (later to become the

first architect ofthe L. C. C. ), parapetsq either on external or party

were a constant problem and were not to be (68).

walls, encouraged

Within five years, the Model By-laws had been amended accordingly
(Table 9 sheet 3).

Finally, chimneys - their control under the by-laws w4s now introduced
for the first time, and their regulations were taken largely intact

from the 1855 Metropolitan Building Act. Two additional rules were
clauses 38 and 44. The former introduced a greater thickness of

282
brickwork to surround commercial flues than in the London Act, and the
latter introduced the use of iron bars to support arched flues (such

as those which sprang from a small outbuilding at the rear of a house

to join the main stack or back wall of the house itself). This was
considered, even when it was first proposed, to be "a remnant of an
old building heresy which should be allowed to die out - an arch should
be independent of this kind of perishable support" (69). The Model By-
laws also now allowed chimneys to corbel out at any floor, instead of
only above the ground floor as in London. Some parts of the chimney
regulations in the Metropolitan Building Act were not transposed to the
Model By-laws since certain matters - flue sizes, for example, were
retained in the still valid, though in practice largely defunct?
Chimney Sweepers Act of 1840.

Space about Buildings and Ventilation (Table 8, sheet 7).

Although the Model By-laws regulated the distance across the 150 sq-ft.

minimum rear yard in relation to the height of a house, there was still
no effective way of ensuring that this space, snall as it was, would not
be built over at a later date. It was apparently common practice to

buy up adjacent properties, an an island site, and to rebuild a part

of them to a higher levels under the guise of an addition to an old

building - thereby avoiding the regulations and gradually reducing the

remaining amount of open space. 'The Builder' vividly described this

process as it was then happening in the area of the Strand and

Piccadilly in 1877, and it was seen that the Model By-laws would not

prevent this happening elsewhere (70). It was also seen however, that
this rule did prevent a person from completely rebuilding his property
to a greater height, if the former yard area was already at the minimum

and incapable of further enlargement (71).

The Model By-laws introduced the regulation requiring a clear space in

the front of a dwelling of 241011 width - in London, it was still

possible to have houses, in certain conditions, facing each other only

20,011 apart. At long last, the model clauses 55 and 57 required a

window in a habitable room to open onto the open space and external

air - again an advance over the London Act. Clause 53 meant that in

a street say 151011 wide, an owner rebuilding a house had to set it back
to give the required width of 2410", and he was not allowed any financial
compensation for this "sacrifice". The Metropolis Local Management
Act of 1862, section 74, had however allowed compensation in a similar
case, and in order to avoid the zig-zag effect that this rule might
have had on the line of properties, the 1878 amendment Bill to the
Metropolitan Act was to propose that the distance be measured from
the centre of the road, rather than the opposite face of the buildings.

it was generally agreed that the clause 56 requiring a ventilation space

under the ground floor was necessary to prevent rot, but to some the
necessity seemed to be over-elaborate - "but what other good does it
do? "(72) One critic felt that 6119 rather than 3" clear would have been

betterg since rubbish tended to accummulate in the space (73), but to

another, the whole idea of this space was abhorrent - it would be

occupied by rats and filth - and he preferred a solid floor, which he

considered would be cheaper anyway, even if it was covered with a wood

block finish (74)-

Drainage (Table 89 sheet 8

Some fear was expressed over clause 62, where the drain beneath a

building was required to be cast in concrete. a What if a blockage

it was asked (75). It was also likely to be and at

occurred? expensive

least one critic maintained that clay would be just as good a protection
(76). The same critic was concerned at the by-law requiring a w. c. to

have a window to an external wall, since it prohibited the alternative

of using a roof ventilator. The detailed specificiations for the

sanitary equipment wouldl of course, now eliminate the sordid hopper and

pan closet as well as the dangerous D-trap, but again there was

to these improvements (77).

resistance

The most important change was the move away from the principle of the

hermetically sealed drain and cesspool to the concept of proper through

ventilation. Norman Shaw had used such a system with open rather than

closedsoil pipes for Cheyne House for Mr. Mathey on the Chelsea Embank-

(78), as well as at his own house at No 6,, Ellerdale Road,

ment
Hampstead in 1875 (79). T#Rogers Field had with the
also experimented
device of the disconnecting soil pipe in his own work since 1875- This

284
device had, he claimed, been used by the Uppingham Rural Sanitary
Authority in 1876 and had been one of the first to be officially

approved, since when it "was now established in the Model By-lawslt

(80). The range and nature of all these experiments confirms the fact
that there was still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the precise
effectiveness of these devices. There were many patent versions being

eagerly promoted by all sorts of 'sanitary specialists', and the

profusion of these clauses in the Model By-laws reflects the keen

attention and concern which the subject of proper drainage was generating
at the time.

The Course of the Model By-laws 1878 - 1882

In general the Model By-laws were well received by the professional

bodies concerned with building. Under the title "Common weal v. Bricks

and Mortar", R. E. Pownall analysed the new by-laws at a meeting of the

Civil and Mechanical Engineers, Society in March 1878- He reflected the

that
favourable view, and particularly supported the fact/the Local Govern-

ment Board had at last accepted that the State should provide,
.
what was in effect., an outline specification for building standards. His

main regret was that there was to be no special expert tribunal to

resolve controversial issues, since this was to be left in the hands

of the local magistrates. 'The Builder' also welcomed the new by-laws,
but added a note of caution which was not ill-founded: -
"Looking at them [the Model By-laws] as the future course of building
legislation we should say that they err a little on the side of being
too minute, unless frequent new editions are contemplated" (81).

The most extreme view came from the older guard. Ellice Clarke,

Surveyor for Brighton and Hove, was surprised to hear that the R. I. B. A-

had approved any of them, because he found them "absurd and impossible
to carry out" (82). He could see no good reason for banning wood in

party walls for example, and grudgingly acknowledged that the new rules

might just be feasible in South-East England - but not in Hanley in

Staffordshire, where 41211thick walls were the tradition. But he touched

on one still valid point when he stressed that the main need was for
the public to be properly educated in these matters, and as we see later
in this chapter, there was still a wide gap between the standards of

285
the professions and the day-to-day practice of the local Speculative
builder.

The main shortcomings in the contents of the model by-laws were summarized
by J. D. Mathews in his paper "The Model By-laws as a basis of a General

Building Act" delivered to the R. I. B. A. General Conference in 1878 (83)

These were: -
1. they did not apply to alterations to old buildings,

2. there was no mention of hearths,

3- no controls were given for timber scantlings, or for iron

construction,
4. the open back yard prevented the use of the entire ground floor

for a shop$

5- there were no controls on public buildings (such as those controls

which governed corridors and stairs in public buildings in London),

except for the walls to be as for warehouse walls and a need for

adequate ventilation to be provided,

6. there were no provisions for determining the rights of the res-

pective owners of party walls, as there were in London,, and

7. the drainage clauses were too elaborate - The medical profession

again came under attack - Itthey have had a little too much their

own way in framing the drainage clauses".

To these points of Mathews we might add the following as further important

omissions: -
1. these rules were designed basically (as the Public Health specified)

for urban areas only - and this was to cause problems later when

the same Model By-laws came to be adopted in rural areas (see

Chapter IX))

2. there were no rules governing the relationship of hot water or

steam pipes to woodwork such a controversial matter in London in

-

earlier days, but one which was undergoing considerable re-assessment,

and which had only a few more years to run, in its more stringent

forms in Londonp

3- the definitions of 'street' and 'building' were vague, if not

virtually non-existentp

there was nothing regarding the underpinning of wallsl cavity walls,

the area of rooms or the height of rooms,

5- there were no controls on plastering, which at the time was often
bad (84), the plaster being largely held in place by
notoriously
horsehair and applied on such thickness to cover an uneven ceiling
that it frequently fell under its own weight.
Finally, as Ellice Clarke shrewdly noted in 1881, it was in fact possible

under the by-laws to build a house without any floors, without any

doors or windows, of any height of room and without any plumbing (85)-

As with all these building regulations, great play was made of what

should not be done - but there were no fundamental and positive controls

to ensure that the basic requirements, even though generally understood,

were incorporated as well.

How then did these early by-laws, based on the model, work in practice?
A short selection of cases may serve to illuminate the picture as it

appeared in the first six years of their operation. Whilst some towns
which benefited from a more inspired local leadership, such as that

given by Chamberlain in Birmingham, proceeded to produce new by-laws

based closely on the new model code, many other areas were much slower

off the mark. Some areas, of course, still had no by-laws at all. The

medical department of the Local Government Board revealed examples in a

report presented in 1881. One builder carried the first-floor joists

in his cottages into and under the hearth. His defence was simply that

"it anyone would light a fire in room" (86).

was unlikely an upper
Even if there had been by-laws in operation in that particular case, it

was still true that the matter of hearths could not have been included

in them, as we have just noted.

In suburban parishes around London, which were some of the most rapidly

expanding areas of new housing, by-laws were introduced which were

based in part on the model of the Metropolitan Building Act and in part

Model By-laws (87), frequently a hybrid

on the producing set of

regulations as a result. In many areas, even where the spirit was

the sheer practicalities of implementation proved insurmount-

willingg
In the rapidly expanding suburb of West Ham, the Surveyorg Lewis
able.
Angell, told a meeting of the Association of Municipal Sanitary

Engineers and Surveyors in 1881 that he would gladly have urged the

adoption of the Model By-laws, but he felt there was no chance of them

being observed over the seven and a quarter square miles of his

district with the limited staff at his disposal (88). There was also

ample room for corruption. In a case at Hove, three houses in

Sackville Road had mortar made from gravel, loam and lime. The witness

287
for the defence turned out to be also a member of the prosecuting
local authority, a member of the very committee which had instigated
the proceedings (89). Little wonder that the local surveyor - who
was none other than Ellice Clarke - took such a jaundiced view of the

whole business of the by-laws. But 'The Builder' reassured its

readers, in Hove at least, about the quality of the building, if not

the corrupt practices of its councillors. "It must not be thought

that Hove is very bad - there are some small houses there superior to

many being built around London and in many provincial towns where the
by-laws are utterly disregarded" (90). This was the reality of the

whole situation in practice. By-laws existed, and they were not un-
reasonable in themselves, but the gap between what existed on paper
and what was actually implemented on site was very wide. There was a
building boom - Tottenham was approving five thousand house plans
alone in 1882 (91), but the effective control was minimal. In nearby
Leyton, houses were occupied, but not connected to a main sewer (92),,

and in Bedford Road, Finchley, houses were occupied which had no

drains or trapsl no vent pipes, no vents for cesspools, no ventilation
under the floors, no concrete surrounding the drains under the houses

and many more similar deficiencies. The defence of the local builder

was that "he did not understand the by-laws1t, and his fine - merely one

shilling for each part of the summons was not a particularly severe
deterrent. (93) Mr. Jukes, builder of houses in Tewkesbury Road (off

Seven Sisters Road), failed to provide solid foundations. "It will

simply ruin me if I have to pull down these houses, as they are built

up to the bedroom windows", he pleaded. The magistrate replied "You

talk about ruining yourself if you have to pull the houses down, but

what about ruining the purchaser? " Back came Julces' retort "When a

man buys a house he is supposed to do so with his eyes open, and if

he is ruined that is his business" (94). With these examples it is

clear just how wide the gap was between theory and practice, how

ineffective the permissive contrals,, and how lax the administrative

local machinery really was. There was ignorance of these matters on
the of the local builders and the general public alike. 'The
part
Times, reviewing the work of the Local Goverrunent Board in 1881, noted
that it reflected "more solid work than many a new Constitutional
European Treaty" and it had been able to circulate Model By-laws
"which have been very generally, even if sometimes only partially
adopted but its one chief difficulty is the want of co-operation
....

288
and of a public opinion strong enough to overbear interested

opposition" (95)-

The Course of the Model By-laws Between 1882 and 1884

At a point some five years after the introduction of the Model By-

laws it becomes possible to see more clearly the shortcomings of the

regulations. By 1882, nearly a thousand urban authorities and some

600 rural authorities (under the powers of section 276 of the 1875

Public Health Act) had had their local building by-laws approved.
In February that year Joseph Boult re-appeared on the scene at the

R. I. B. A. and re-opened the subject with his lecture "Uniformity in

Building and Sanitary Regulations" (96). This was followed the next

year by H. D. Appleton's analysis of the changes taking place in the

Model By-laws with his lecture to the Architectural Association (97)

and with H. C. Burdett's lecture on the "Dwellings of the Middle

Classes" to the Sanitary Congress in Glasgow (98). The changes that

were made were included in Charles Knight's first edition of his

invaluable guide - the Annotated Model By-laws, in 1883, and these

are summarised on Table 9 (99).

changes

In his lecture to the R. I. B. A., Boult drew comparisons between the

Model By-laws, the London regulations and his own local regulations
in Liverpool - which still maintained its own local act and which
indeed, in the same year, 1882, was in the process of securing a new

Building and Improvement Act (100). This following

measure, whilst
the general pattern of the earlier Liverpool Building Actq also

introduced certain alterations which were derived from the Model By-

laws. Boult's lecture is therefore of interest for three reasons -

first, its theme maintained the trend towards uniformity in building

regulation; secondlyq it highlighted the more controversial areas

within the regulations; and thirdlyit drew comparisons between the

Model By-laws and the current legislation in London and Liverpool.

In general Boult found that the Model Dy-laws "result from a compromise

between conflicting advisers : thus only can their inconsistencies

discrepancies be explained" (101). This due, he to

and was surmised,
the lack of a system atic. collection of facts, a lack of practical
knowledge and above all, "the interference the medical men". It
of

289
was timeq he said, for the architects and engineers to return to the
lead in sanitary science (102).

As an example of the inconsistenciesq Boult quoted the case of the

ventilation regulations. Model By-law 58 called for one hundred

square inches of ventilation in a room without a chimney - yet a
chimney itself was quite commonly, even with a flue lining, 95 sq. ins.,

and the area of the chimney pot was rarely much over 50 sq. in. (At the

same time it was still possible to follow the 126 sq. in., i. e. 911 X 1411

of the flue size laid down in the Chimney Sweepers Act of 1840).
Besides these variations, when one looked at the following by-law,
No. 599 calling for adequate ventilation in public buildings, the

requirements were vague, the terminology different and the style of

language confused.

He could see no reason for this - although we have now seen with
hindsight the differing root sources of these two regulations. To

Boult howeveri this all reflected 'a lack of systematic- enquiry" and
the inclusion of "foregone conclusions which experience had shown to

be fallacious". ' How was it, he asked, that in Liverpool the w. c. was

compulsory and the privy banned, yet in Manchester the w. c. was

generally discouraged and the privy virtually universal? In answer

to ]3oult's call for a systematic enquiry there were indications of

a more scientific approach being made to these matters. E. C. Robins,

for examplel in the discussion following Boult's paper, described a

visit he had made to a Dr. Pettenkofeir's Hygienic Institute in Munichq

where one DrRenk was working on the study of the passage of air and

moisture through various building materials and elements, and on the

of 'ground air' in basements (103).

study

An example which brings out the three aspects described in the second

paragraph of this section, was the case of the damp proof course.
Where, queried Boult, was the uniformity between the Model By-laws

requirement for the damp proof course to be 611 above ground level, the

London requirement (under the amending act of 1878) for it to be 12"

above ground in external walls and 611 below the floor level in party

and external walls, and the Liverpool requirement for it to be only

411 above ground level in every wall - although there it could be

dispensed with altogether if there was a vertical cavity in the wall.

290
Furthermore all these regulations showed little familiarity with
practical building. The London regulation did not require the damp

proof course to be at the same level throughout, or to link it

together, so the result would be a lateral spread of damp by capil-
liary actionj and the Model By-laws, being "admirably obscurelt,
referred to "such a wall", and this phrase could be taken to mean
each distinct length of wall so that, once again, if the front and
back of the building were at different levels, a discontinuous damp

proof course would result. The problem of taking the damp proof course
around the front step to a shop was again raised, but now P. Gordon
Smithq the Local Government Board architect, described a solution
involving a small open area beneath the threshold, and this devious device

was to be included in the revisions to the Model By-laws and duly

appears in Knight's Annotated Model By-laws in 1883 (see Table 91 sheet
2). (104k). The architect Evan Christian took this matter further and
described his own method of providing a damp proof course to a basement
wall. (105) This involved two damp proof coursesl one at the top and
the other at the base of the wall - Ifto shut off the damp which may
be supposed to run laterally from the ends". "The great point"? he

rightly stressed, "is the connection between the two" and for this he

formed a 211 hollow cavity, which he had filled with asphalte. This

technique had been used successfully by Christian for the Ecclesiast-

ical Commission offices next to Scotland Yard. He maintained that

there were no problems of bonding the two leaves of the wall together,

since the asphalte had "such extraordinary tenacity for brick" that

it became a solid body. This device was also included by Knight in

1883 (see Table

sheet? -), 9,
but the cavity was shown empty - since
it had been determined legally that a vertical damp proof course did

not form part of the structure, and therefore lay outside the enabling

powers for by-laws contained in section 157 of the Public Health Act

of 1875-

Boult's detailed analysis of the by-laws went an to discuss two more

contentious issues - wall thicknesses and drainage.

The wall thickness rules were now seen to be far too complicated.

Even though they were based on the London precedent, and the same
rules were applied to both external and party walls, they were now
questioned by Boult. Why should they be the same thickness? External

291
walls were weakened by the insertion of window openingsq were exposed
to the weather and were not usually tied back to the rest of the

structure by the floor timbers. Yet the party walls were strengthened
by the floor timbers and by the chimney breastsq and Boult could
therefore see no good reason why the party walls could not be thinner

than the external walls. He suggested a reduction to one sixth of

the external wall, with a minimum thickness set at 8-2111
in all cases.
Liverpoolý of course, with its old act, still maintained the system

which had operated in London before 1855, with different thickness

rates for the external and party walls. The simplification made in
the London Act of 1855 has been discussed earlier (see page 165), but

although it was administratively more convenient, it did not reflect an

awareness of the structural implications involved - and yet it came through

directly into the Model By-laws. Once again therefore we have a sign
in Boult's analysis of the awakening of a more rational and scientific

method of thinking being brought to bear on the traditional rule of

thumb methods of the earlier legislation.

The discussion on drainage related to three topics% firstq the best

position for the ventilation of the system. Boult saw this not as a
device to allow sewer gas and effluvia to escape without doing injury,

but rather as a means of preventing fermentation from occurring and

therefore preventing sewer gas and effluvia from coming into existence
in the first place. Boult's recommended position for the ventilator

was between the disconnecting trap and the main sewer, where it would

act as a safety valve. The Model By-laws stipulated a position on

the house side of the intercepting trap, or, as it was later allowed

as an alternativeg an air inlet at the far end of the drain with a

ventilation pipe near the intercepting trap (106). The

second
variations on this topic were tediously tossed about amongst the

sanitary experts for some years, and their various theories, whilst
interesting in themselvesq are not an essential part of this study.

The second drainage topic was related more to advances being made in
design. By-law 66 prevented a drain inside a building.
architectural
With an increase in hotel building the ideal place for the water

closets and for the new hydraulic lift, now so essential for the

taller hotels, was towards the centre of the block, close to the main

circulation area, and it thereby allowed the perimeter of the block

292
to be used more advantageously for the bedrooms. But lengthy internal

pipes were classed as drains and the matter was further complicated in
the case of flats, by such pipes having to pass through differing

ownerships, making maintenance difficult. Linked to this was the third

drainage topic, namely by-law 67 and the need for a w. c. to have a
window on an external wall. This was often difficult to arrange, and
Boult could see no offence being caused in the current situation as it
applied to railway stations (which were of course outside the regula-
tions of the by-laws) where the w. c. 's were often ventilated from
the covered courts to which passengers had continuous access. P. Gordon
Smith was quick to stamp out that idea. It may have been satisfactory
for a railway station, he said, but a house was "altogether something
different". It was absolutely essential to have the w. c. window on
an external wall - and not even a skylight would be an acceptable

alternative. There were two other minor points to note on drainage.

One was that it was nowhere stated to be obligatory for a local
authority to lay sewers at a reasonable depth to facilitate the

removal of water and sewerage from houses, and secondly, that the con-
tinuation of the old practice of discharging a sink waste in the open,
over a trapped gulley, was seen even then to be a bad practice,
"abandoned many years ago?' said Boult. It was prone to collect
leaves and rubbish and also to freeze - but it remained a legitimate
practice until very recent times.

Finally, Boult the

mentioned again earlier omissions - no definition
of a building, no controls on timber in roofs or floors, (a matter

still controlled in Liverpool),, no party arches or fireproof construc-

tion in areas outside London, the anomaly of the parapet wall and the

projections - and"why was it still possible for some buildings to be

entirely exdmpt from any regulations? "

In Liverpool's new Improvement Act of 1882 a number of these topics

were to be incorporated. Rules for the support of openings in

external walls, wooden buildings, hearths, mortar specifications,

concrete walls and timber sizes were all included, even though they

were not to be found in any detail in the contemporary Model By-laws.

on the other hand, the damp proof course (though 411 above ground),
only
the size of footings, and the table of wall thicknesses adjusted
were

on the lines of the Model By-laws.

293
Within the Model By-laws themselves, a number of changes were made
and these are incorporated in Table 9. The damp proof course and

parapet rules have already been discussed, but three other innovations

deserve comment here. The need for a firm and healthy substratum,

when a site had previously been excavated for a clay pit, reflects the

common practice of the time to use the excavated material for bricks

for the houses, and then to build the houses on the same site - on
very insubstantial foundations. The demand for a hollow cavity wall

was now recognised, although the precise wording of a suitable model

came a little later (see Table 10 sheet Z) and, more surpris-
clause
ingly, the use of the half timber walls now reappeared in the

regulations. This had been successfully banned in the London regu-

lations, where all 'chain and bond timbers' had been prevented for

fear of fire spread and rot in the timberwork, and its reappearance
at this point is rather unexpected. It is true that in certain

architectural circles there was a move towards a vernacular revival,

and the particular case of Bedford Park is mentioned in this same

context in the next chapter. It may also have been a concession

towards demands from the 'genuine' rural areas, where bricks may have
been scarce or expensive, and where the practice of using timber in

walls was still employed as part of the traditional building technique

the area (107). With more and more rural authorities now adopting
of
these primarily urban by-laws, there may have been some pressure
brought to bear here, but there is no direct evidence for this latter

supposition.

We may note in passing here an abortive Bill prepared in -1883, aimed

at securing one detailed item not covered by the by-laws, but still
with Public safety in buildings. This was the Public
concerned
Buildings (Doors) Bill, which would have made it compulsory for all

doors of public buildings to be hung so as to open outwards - in the

direction of escape. (108) It was read twice in Parliamentq but time

was against it and it was withdrawn on 13 July 1883 (109)-

Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes 1884 (110)

Whilst this study maintains the course of analysing the evolving

294
pattern of the building regulations, and whilst it will have been clear
in the preceding chapters that this subject was intimately bound up

with housing, it must be noted that from about 1875 the emphasis
changes, and the larger and more controversial subject of the actual
provision of working class houses becomes more dominating and tends
to overshadow the more mundane subject of building regulations. It
is not the intention of this study to stray too far into this area of
housing, a subject already well covered by a number of other writers.
Neverthelessl whilst the housing field attracts more attention, there
is still a steady development in building regulation, and at times
the two areas still tend to overlap. One such area is the Report of
the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, and
although the emphasis there is naturally on the provision of housing,
it is still possible to identify certain matters related to building
regulationg even though they are scattered at random throughout the

evidence and only occupy a small part of the Commission's recommend-

ations.

There were two main recommendations concerning building regulationg

and both were limited to London. One was that more general rules
should be framed, on the lines of the 1862 and 1878 amending Acts
to control the height of buildings in relation to the in
open space
front; the second was to provide a space at the rear of the house -
in both old and new streets - which would be free from obstructions,
and which would extend the whole width of the building. A minimum
depth would also be specified, and it would be a depth which would in
turn be proportioned to the height of the house. It was also recom-
mended that local authorities should both make and enforce their by-
laws, and also to put in force such powers as they were entrusted
with by law.

This matter of open space was raised by three witnesses, Octavia Hill
(grand-daughter of Southwood Smith), Henry Armstrong from Newcastle

upon Tyne and, indirectlys by Joseph Chamberlain from Birmingham.

Miss Hill, admitting that her knowledge was based solely on the IA:)ndon

situation, was particularly concerned at the limited 'breathing space'

around new buildings; the fact that there was no relationship between
the sizes of the space and the heights of rooms; and the fact that it

295
was still possible in London to build out over both front and back
yards (111). The cul-de-sac was also a concern, but for her it was
more the difficulty of being able "to keep any public opinion or
order in themg than the difficulty of getting air" (112). The

problem of obtaining a greater proportion of space in relation to

the height of building was explained by the Reverend James Johnson
in the 'Nineteenth Century' magazine. These regulations, he sdid,

only affected the lessees or the builders and not the landowners.
It was at the level of the landowners that the opposition would be
felt9 particularly since so many of the landowners were members of
Parliament (113). Armstrongg referring to the Newcastle by-laws,

which were not based on the Model By-laws since Newcastle operated
its own local Actq considered that they were well enforced (although

Laws, the local Surveyor, admitted elsewhere in the evidence that

they were not so strictly carried out as they should have been, and
that he was vainly trying to get more up-to-date by-laws passed (114).

In Newcastle the open space was fixed by leaving one quarter of the

site of the house vacant for a yard. But Armstrong wanted the area
to the height the building Model By-
of open space related of - the
laws only related the depth of the yard, not its area, to the height

of the building - and Armstrong further suggested that every fifthq

or perhaps every tenth site, in a large street should be left as a

vacant site, presumably to aid the circulation of air between the

houses (115)- Joseph Chamberlain, who besides being the dynamic

leader in Birmingham, was also the President of the Board of Trade,

proudly referred to Birmingham's early recognition and incorporation

of the Model By-laws, which had now "stopped jerry building" and had

provided powers to supervise the erection of buildings (116). But

for Chamberlain the Model By-laws still lacked one further essential,

namely the power to prevent the cul-de-sac (117).

Other points raised concerning building regulation in the evidence to

the Royal Commission were not so significant, but may be briefly

mentioned here in order to complete the picture. Hugh Owen, Permanent

Secretary to the Local Government Board stressed that the Model By-

laws had been drafted with "the utmost care" (118). Andrew Young,

Surveyor to the London School Board, objected to the Model By-laws,

and complained that they were more stringent than the Metropolitan

296
Building Act - he could see no good reason for example to compel a
cesspool to be at least 61011 away from a house as the by-laws
demanded. He also confirmed that the by-laws were not properly en-
forcedq either because the rules were too strict or the local author-
ity was too lax in its enforcement of the rules)and as a portent for
the futureq he felt that the Local Government Board would not really
allow the local authorities to have any by-laws short of their own,
the Board's, Model By-laws (l19). William Lascelles, a builder with
patent rights to a concrete walling system, spent his time before the
Commission attacking the short sighted Metropolitan Board of Works
who were preventing him from operating his system - and praising
neighbouring Croydon for having put a special clause in their by-laws
to allow him to erect his concrete houses (120). This topic of con-
crete is discussed more fully later (see page 352), as is the topic

raised by George Lefevre, First Commissioner of H. M. Works and Public

Buildings, asking for regulations to prevent building over graveyards.
This was the result of the notorious Peel Grove case (see page 3SZ).

The principal conclusion from the Royal Commission report was the

need for a fresh look at the question of open space provision in

relation to housing. P. Gordon Smith added a detailed report in the

appendix (121) which compared the existing London standards and the

requirements of the Model By-laws. 'The Builder' made the subject

of open space about buildings the subject of its leading article in

June 1884 (122). calling for fresh legislation, but mainly on the
Metropolitan front. A pressing need was for a rule to require the

provision of windows to relate to the yard area, the restricted

size of the open space and the fact that it could still be built over
was inspected
house (123). It was true that
once the and approved
the 1882 Amending Act (see page 351) was beginning to have some

effect, with varying sizes of yards related to the width of house

frontagesl as well as concessions for awkward sites, as the Model

By-laws were also having to acknowledge (see Table 10), but it was

still the case that the yards did not relate to the height of the

buildings in London.

Two items of building legislation were secured in the year of the

Royal Commission enquiry. One was the Act to prevent the erection
of buildings on disused burial grounds, which came partly as a result

297
of the Commission's enquiry and partly from the Peel Grove case

mentioned above (124). The other was the Public Health (Confirmation

of By-laws) Act (125), a small but important measure which filled

one loophole in the law by now actually giving the force of law to

any by-laws passed by the Local Government Board. Up to this point,

the courts had decided that by-laws did not require the confirmation

of the Local Government Board in order to be legally valid. After

this point thereforej the power of the Local Government Board was
further strengthened, and another step was made towards centralised

control.

Looking more to the futurel H. H. Collins addressed the Institute of

Health Exhibition on behalf of the Social Science Association in the

1884 (126), on the subject 'What conditions are

same year, essential,
for a healthy dwelling, whether in an urban or rural locality and how

far is it desirable that they should be rendered compulsory by

legislation', a wide and elaborate title, but an interesting lecture-

which contained a number of pointers to the future.

First there was the continuation of the growth in a more scientific

study of matters which impinged on the areas covered by building

regulation. Collins referred, as had Robins earlier (see page 290)

to the work of Pettenkofer at Munich, to the scientific analysis of
the "Unclean ground air which impregnates water and ground poison
....
the soil and you poison the atmosphere". Collins consequently

recommended the use of better subsoil drainage, as well as the sealing

of the site for the house by a layer of asphalte or concrete. Then

there was the need for the house to face the sun, a consideration which
Dr. Liddle had raised in 1876 (see Chapter VII I page 34? and Collins
-).,,
in a courageously bold movet had directly consulted the Astronomer

Royal to ascertain the number of sunny days. All these innovations

Collins maintained, inevitably lead to an improvement in health;
would,
and he went on to elaborate on the research work of Lister, Koch and

Pasteur, stressing particularly the need for a constant supply of

clean water and the avoidance of bad drains. The range of suggestions

- the dustbin should be abolished (or at least a new gal-

was wide
vanised iron one obtained each year)9 room sizes should be proportioned

to the number of linmates. 9 and something, though he did not say

what, should be done about the "enormous height of the houses
exactly

298
now being built" (the Artizan Building in the Minories then being

built by the Metropolitan Railway Company, was already ten storeys

high). Many buildings of this type had stairs only, the lift still
being something of an expensive novelty, and Collins quoted the dire

warnings of a Dr. Beddoe "that lofty staircases tell unfortunately

on the health of those frequently ascending them, producing anaemia

and functional affections of the heart". It was not philanthropy,

said Collins,. but "crass sanitary ignorance".

I

Collins'suggestions were fundamental and sound. There should, he

said, be uniformity in both action and area, an abolition of the

distinction between urban and rural districts2 the application of the

controls to the whole kingdom, with no exceptions and proper in-

spection. Finallyl the permissive nature of the controls should

cease - "legislation to be effective should be compulsorytt.

Collins' views may be extended by those of Lewis Angell, the Surveyor

for Vest Ham in his address to the Congress of the Sanitary Institute

of Great Britain at Leicester the following year (127). Regarding

the operation of the by-lawsq their adoption was of course still

optionall and some authorities had been known to assume the right to

suspend their by-laws - to suit themselves. Other authorities had

decided to judge each case "on its own merits" and were therefore

not above favouritism. Supervision was poor, many ratepayers

objected to paying for the necessary staff., and although some towns
(such as Londong Bristol, Eastbourne - and West Ham-1 had a system of

building fees, granted under local acts, the extension of such powers

was opposed byl amongst others, Lord Redesdale, Chairman of the

Committee of the Lords. In more technical detail, there was no require-

ment for a certificate of approval to be issued before a house was

occupied, no powers to control the height of living rooms, or the

construction of hearths. There were no controls over the addition

or alteration to new or old buildings, and no power to ensure a proper

constant supply of water to a w. c. And behind it all was the appalling

ignorance on the part of the public for the need and importance of
these controls.

The moves to meet many of these objections raised by Collins and

Angell were to come in the Public Health Amendment Act 1890, and
of

299
we shall return to trace these developments shortly. Meanwhile, we
must pause to consider one isolated piece of legislation and to
survey the operation of some examples of local building by-laws in

practice in this period.

Public Health Act Amendment (Buildings in Streets) Act 1888

Bradford was one of a number of towns which included alongside its

by-laws section 156 of the 1875 Public Health Act section which
-a
gave the local authority power to control the line of new buildings
in streets. The clause stated:
"It should not be lawful in any urban district, without the written
consent of the urban authority, to bring forward any house or
building forming part of any street, or any part thereof, beyond
the front wall of the house or building on either side thereof".

This did not therefore mean that there was an original building line;

it simply meant that the line was determined by the first builder to

arrive on the site - who could apparently proceed to build his first

house wherever he liked. This then established the building line, and
the authority could then insist that all other houses be related to

this line. This of course had serious implications for the other
builders along the street, whose economic returns may well have been

controlled by a higher density or closer grouping of houses than that

established by the first builder. The builders in Bradford wrote to

'The Builder' in 1885 to question this, but it seemed that this was
in fact the case. Bradford could set a street width at 481011, but

it was not in a position to indicate the building line itself (128).

Wallesey Local Boardpon the other handphad set an original building

line in a street but the first houses were built back from the
well
line. It was somewhat unfortunate therefore that a Mr. Williams was
duly summoned under Section 156 when he went ahead and built his
houses in front of his neighbours - but still behind the original line

set by the local authority. The case went against Williams, but on
appeal to a higher court the decision was reversed (12q). The court
determined that it was reasonable for the local to fix
authority
the line and thenj if a person chose to build behind it there would

300
be no reason for his neighbours to lose the advantage for their own
building (130). The law obviously needed altering and a bill was
therefore prepared in 1887 (13l) known as the Public Health Act

(Buildings in Streets) Bill, introduced into Parliament in April (132)

and passed into law the following year (133). The new Act repealed

section 156 of the Public Health Actlof 1875, but re-enacted its

provisions in substance in such a form as to render them applicable

not only to bringing forward but also to the erection of any building
in a street (134). Clearly however, such new legislation took some
time to permeate the country. At Ravensthorpe in 1890, a Mr. Hinch-
cliffe built a front main wall some 61011 beyond the line of the

adjacent housel though only to a height of 511 before he was summoned -

under section 156 of the 1875 Public Health Act. Fortunately for
Mr. Hinchcliffe the Court held that the wall was not a house or a
building within the terms of the Act and did not therefore constitute
an offence. But the magistrate made a point of calling for a revision

of this section 1569 apparently unaware of the amendments already

made (135).

The Building By-laws in Practice 1886-18go

Although the Local Government Board had made sincere efforts to so

frame the Model By-laws that
would be no ambiguity there or confusion$
their hopes were not to be realised. Misinterpretations abounded.
chiswick, for example, basing
on the model, interpreted its by-laws
the chimney regulations requiring a 911 back to mean 1811when chimneys
were arranged back to back, and the 4111 thick sides to be likewise
2
911 thick when flues were adjacent to each other. IlImaginell., wrote a
local builder, "the effect on a stack of ten flues" (136). Another

correspondent queried the anomaly caused by a cellar in relation to

the thickness of the wall superstructure above. If a cellar was built,

then the wall below the top storey of the house had to be 1411 thick
(and that could be in a two storey house), but in London only the

wall of a cellar in a similar situation had to be 11*11thick. There-

forel if a cellar only occupied half the area of the house, it meant
that the ground floor wall on one side (away from the cellar) could be

301 1
911 thick, whereas the wall on the cellar side had to be 1411 thick
(see diagram with note 137),

The Local Government Board duly recognised these difficulties and

amended the Model By-laws to clarify the regulations. Contrary to

Chiswick's interpretation, withes had to be 4111 (not 911) and chimney
backs 911 (not 1811). With regard to cellars, where a cellar occupied
only up to one third of the area of the site of a building, it was

not deemed to be a storey, and therefore the requirement for a thicker

wall in the upper floors did not apply. This would have encouraged
the use of only a small cellar in houses after 1887. Objections were

also raised to clause 25, requiring parapets on the walls of buildings

which were within 15'0" of another building, and this was also altered
in the Model By-laws to the more relaxed distance of 101011 - but
this requirement was largely nullified from the point of view of fire
spread because there was no prohibition on the insertion of a window
in a gable wall. Finally, also in 1887, tThe Builder' noted that the
area of the back yard was being increased to 200 sq. ft. and it was not
to be covered in - but this change was not recorded elsewhere and would
appear to be an error on the part of the correspondent. It would
however, have paralleled the increase made in 1882 to the same topic
in the Metropolitan Building Act (138).

All manner of excuses were commonly employed in order to avoid the

by-laws. A Mr. Potter omitted the damp proof course from a wall in a
house at Windsor. His defence was that the house was in the middle

of a forest and he was unaware of the existence of the Sanitary

Authority (139). When this plea failedp Potter changed his tune

and maintained that the wall, which was of concrete, was itself

satisfactory as a damp proof course. The architect, Tyler, had not

apparently considered the damp proof course to be necessary, and

architects from London came to support him, but the magistrate, faced

a difficult technical decision, decided that concrete was not

with
impervious to moisture. Tyler neatly escaped a penalty - after all

it was still the contractor's responsibility to satisfy the Sanitary

and Potter had to pay the fine of CIO plus the costs (140).
Authority,

The revealing document to expose the abuse of the by-laws was

most
the on back-to-back houses prepared for the Local Government
report

302
Board in 1888 by Dr. Barry and P. Gordon Smith. Not only were back-
to-back houses still being built in Yorkshire, but many local by-laws

actually openly permitted them. They were preferred to 'through houses'

in Leeds and Halifaxj by the builders there, because they were cheaper
to build, and, so it was said, by the inhabitants, to whom "the
dirtier was cosier" was the appeal. Yet in fact it resulted in a
difference of only one penny a week in the rent. Between 1876 and
1886, Halifax had built 61% of its new houses on the back-to-back

principle, Morley 82%, Bradford 64% and in Leedsj between 1875 and
1887,50,000 people lived in this type of house. It was considered
extraordinary by 'The Builder' that there were by-laws which actually
permitted the building of back-to-backs. Halifax, it noted, "positively

revels in back-to-backs'19 for there the, by-laws allowed blocks of

eight houses, four each way with 15'011 space between the blocks.
"This rule should not be departed from without the previous consent
of the Corporation" ran their by-laws, and yet this rule was relaxed,
but only to allow a worse situation, with blocks able to contain 16,
28 or even 30 houses. Keighley was only marginally better. There
the houses were L-shaped, with four set back to back to form a cross,
and some partial ventilation was therefore possible through the arms

of the cross. As for construction generally, the report described

party walls only 4121, thick, walls only taken up to the level of the
I
top ceiling, floors timbers touching in the centre of party walls,,
and privies built up against the outside walls of houses. (141) A
further report to the Local Government Board from Dr. Parsons described
the high rate of mortality and the conditions of the properties in

Dolgelly. There were rooms without light or ventilation, the windows

being blocked up to stop the smell from a nearby tannery, the w. c.

under the stairs without any light or ventilation. The density was
425 persons to the acre. The local by-laws were based on the Model

By-laws, but were totally disregarded. Plans were submitted, but

nobody took the responsibility to see that the provisions were complied

with.. This non-enforcement was due, in Dr. Parson's opinion, to the

"disinclination often found in small places to appear disobliging to

a neighbour, especially one who may have influential friends on the

Board"(142).

The situation at Rawdon was perhaps the most The local

scandalous.
by-laws, based on the model, were ignored completely. The damp proof

303
course requirement was never enforced, cellars had water in them,
the walls were damp to above ground level, party walls only went up
to the level of the bedroom ceiling, timbers not only met but also
passed right through the party walls, and no open space was provided
at the back of the houses - in fact the back-to-back plan was
approved by the Local Board (143).

These, and many similar examples, are typical of the extreme cases
where the gap between the ideals of the Model By-laws and their

realisation in practice was at its widest. Not all towns were so

badq but in general the effective control of the by-laws in
wasq
the majority of towns, very limited.

Sheffield and the Model By-laws 1889

In spite of the appearance of the Model By-laws in 1877, Sheffield

continued to operate its own by-laws which dated from 1864 (last
referred to on page Z-A?
-). Apart from one minor alteration in 188o,
no changes were proposed until as late as 1888. It was then that
the Highways Committee prepared a new set of by-laws which were
extremely elaborate. The local Society of Architects was strongly
opposed to them and protested to the Local Government Board (144).
But it was the Town Council itself which finally decided that they
were not acceptable (145) and a fresh set were prepared and approved
in 1889. They now followed the Model By-laws very closely, but there
were certain variations. These variations were the result of the
pressures of local building practice and the retention of certain of
the old by-laws of 1864, which the authority preferred to retain.
The current state of the Model By-laws was reflected in the Third
edition of Knight's Annotated Model By-laws in 1890, just a year

after Sheffield's by-laws had appeared, and a comparison between the

two, provides a useful picture of the state of the building by-laws,
both in the model theory and in one case of local practice - in the
period just prior to the major changes that were to be made under the
Public Health Act of 1890.

Street controls may be taken first and show that local practice and

304
preference over-rode the model standard. The overall street width
in Sheffield was set at 401011 min. but the model width of 36,01, was

only a minimum and Sheffield may well have been influenced by the

argument raised in Kmight's First Edition of 1883 where it was

strongly suggested that the 36,011 could be "increased with advantage
to 4010". The controls on back streets - the narrower streets for

secondary access only, were not included by Sheffield, which again

reflects the opinion of Knight, who stated that "the provision of
such streets might be hindered if the by-laws prescribed a really
adequate width" (see Table 9, sheet 1). The inclusion this
of was
therefore optionall but it was obviously being considered seriously
in some areas, for Might's Third edition of 1890 provided a suitable
clause to cover this matter (see Table 10 sheet 1), and furthermore
it became legally possible to regulate these secondary streets under
the Public Health Amendment Act of the same year. Sheffield, perhaps
with some shrewd foresightf just timed its by-laws to miss this

opportunity. One minor variation which may be noted was in the matter
of footpath widths. Sheffield set these at 1/5th the width of the
street (i. e. 81011) whereas the model had set a minimum i/6th
of
(i. e. 61011 in a street 36,011 wide). In the area of streets and
footpaths thereforeq Sheffield went beyond the minimum of the model
by-laws.

Under the topic of building structures Sheffield$ like many northern

towns, omitted the requirement for parapets on external walls when
they were within 15'011 of another building. We have noted earlier
(page 28Z) the concern expressed generally about the stringency of
this by-law, it was obviously unpopular and of little practical effect
(it had been modified to 101011 in 1887). By-law No. 26 which required
party walls to project above the roof was omitted in Sheffield, as
it had been in 1864. It was not local practice and the alternative
and more reasonable by-law was substituted requiring the party wall
to go up only as far as the underside of the roof coveringg the slates
being then properly bonded and solidly set in mortar on top of the

party wall. The need for such an alternative had already been
acknowledged by the Local Government Board and it had appeared as
clause 26a in Knight's first edition of 1883 (Table 9 sheet 3).

Sheffield's controls on the external space about buildings followed

305
the Model By-laws, but the terminology of the 1864 by-laws was

-retained, for instead of referring to the height of houses in feet,

it referred to the height in the number of storeys. The 1864 by-law

controlling the height of a habitable room was also maintained, with

81611 from floor to ceiling and 81011 over not less than half the area
of a room in the roof. It will be recalled that the use of a by-law
to control room heights had been held to be ultra-vires, and it is
doubtful if Sheffield was able to maintain it, even though it had
been made before the 1875 Public Health Act. As it happened, the

matter soon resolved itself, because the following year, 1890, the

amendment to the Public Health Act gave legal approval for just such
a by-law to be made. A minor point in Sheffield was the inclusion

of a by-law to allow a clear space of 911 under a ground floor when

the site was not covered with a concrete layer. This too was a feature
of the Model By-laws by 1889 (Table 10, sheet 3 clause 56a), and
acknowledges an alternative to the earlier by-law requiring the
layer of concrete or asphalte. The cost difference, between 611

concrete and two courses of brickwork (measuring 611) may have been an
important factor here, with the preference being for the extra
brickwork.

The Sheffield drainage by-laws were generally in line with the Model
By-laws, although the clauses covering the w. c., privy, ashpit and

cesspool were retained from the 1864 by-laws9 and were nothing like

so comprehensive or so stringent as the parallel clauses in the

Model By-lawsq Sheffield also specified that no new house could be

occupied until the drains were complete and had been approved -a
requirement not in the Model By-laws. And although section 74 of

the Towns Improvement Clauses Act of 1847 was in operation in Sheffieldq

the model clause 60a (see Table 10), requiring a suitdble downpipe to

connect with the gutter and to drain the roof water away from the

building was also incorporated.

The two topics which had not been in the 1877 Model By-laws, namely
the for half-timber work (Table 9, 1, Ila)
rules sheet clause and
the of a cavity wall (now elaborated in Knight's third
construction

edition of 1890 and described on Table 10 sheet 2 clause II)were

both included in Sheffield's new by-laws of 1889.

306
To complete the picture of all the legislation controlling building
in Sheffield in 1889, the following regulations should be noted.

Cellars were controlled under sections 71 and 72 of the 1875 Public

Health Act, the size of chimney flues under the 1840 Chimney Sweepers

Act and clauses 71 to 74 of the 1847 Towns Improvement Clauses Act

(see Table 5 for details) - together with the other clauses in that

act, peripheral to our main themel but controlling the hoarding,

lighting and protection of building sites and materials. The Disused

Burial Grounds Act of 1884 (see page 297) was now in operation, as

was the local Sheffield Corporation Act of 1883 where, under section
87, controls covered the ingress and egress to public buildings
(schoolsl hotels, churches, but not" hospitals, prisons or railway

stations). Sections 88 and 89 controlled projections in streets and

gave powers for their removal - matters which, outside London, had
featured in Local Acts in the 17th and 18th centuries (see chapter
III, page 126).

Three points concerning the Model By-laws as they were amended by

1889 (Table 10) may be noted here. The exemption of iron buildings

in certain circumstances was now covered in clause 2aand thiss like

half-timber works may reflect the pressures from rural areas for

less stringent construction in agricultural buildings in low density

areas the first signs of growing concerns which were to become much
-
later (see Chapter IX). The distances set for the iron
more vocal

buildings to be set back from the street by 81011 and from the nearest

building or land, and of a height not over 30'0" correspond to the

of buildings clauses in the 1877 Model By-laws-(Table 8

exemption.
10) And in turn to the earlier sources in the Metropolitan
sheet
Building Act. Secondly, clause 53a resulted from the fact the "onus

for providing sufficient land to secure the 241011 of open space

under clause 53 is thrown upon the person who first erects

required

such a building on one side of a narrow street, his opposite

who happens to rebuild at a later date, is altogether

neighbour,

re lieved from providing any such space. To deal with this objection

and to prevent an irregular line of house frontages, clause 53a was

introduced" (146). Thirdly, in the light difficulties

of various

307
which had arisen through trying to interpretate clause 54 on awkwardly

shaped sites, various compromises and suggested alternatives were

incorporated in Knight's third edition, in an attempt to meet these
various permutations. As a result there was some easing of the

rules - for example, where a site was too shallow to allow the pre-
scribed area of open space, it was now possible to provide that space
at the side - the original clause, in an attempt to prevent back-to-
backs had only allowed the open space to be at the rear. A selection

of some of the permutations of this matter is included in Table 10

sheets 4 9--S.

A more significant development in regard to open space about buildings

was taking place in Liverpool at this time. Outside the Model By-
laws, Liverpool's rules for this topic were based on their 1864
Sanitary Amendment Act, which closely paralleled the 1877 Model By-
laws and the 1858 Form of By-laws with 150 sq. ft., 15101t between

properties if two storeys high, 201011 if three storeys and 25'0" if

over three storeys. In 1890 however this was changed, and a new by-
law (devised by Goldstraw) was introduced,, in which the distance across
the open space at the rear of every house was not to be less than
the height of the rear wall of the house - in other words, an angle

of 450 projected, and also this open space must abut on each of
to This 45 0
three sides a similar open space or street. angle of

was to be the precedent for the new rules proposed in London in

1893-4 for this same topic. (see chapter VIII9 page 394) (147).

Public Health Amendment Act 1890

To conclude this chapter we return to the developments in the amend-

ment to the enabling legislation of the Public Health Act and the

consequent extension of powers to include further areas of control

by means of building by-laws. Before focussing on the Health Act

however, there were two other important pieces of legislation, not

immediately related to building matters, but which to have an
were
important bearing on. them. One was the granting of the franchise

to the agricultural labourer in 1884, a move which increased the rural

308
representation and influence in Parliament and therefore ultimately
on legislation; the other was the Local Government Act of 1888 which
further extended the administrative framework of local authority
control and which created the urban and rural district councils, as
well as the county councils, with an attendant re-distribution of
administrative controls from central government to county level. (It

was this act which also allowed the formation of the new London
County Councill following the demise of the Metropolitan Board of
Works). The significance of both these new pieces of legislation was
the growth of more influence and control in the rural areas -a point
to which we shall have to return in Chapter IX.

The need for amendments to the health legislation, as it affected

buildings, began to be voiced after a period of about ten years
following the passing of the Public Health Act of 1875. In 1887,

Lord Basing, (formerly Mr Sclater-Booth, President the Local

of
Government Board from 1874 to 188o) made a number of proposals in

his address to the Congress of the Sanitary Institute of Great

Britain. In building matters these included the need for powers to

dual drainage systems (separating foul from

provide surface water
drainage, an ideal which has still to be realised in a number of

places)l the need for powers to regulate the ventilation and height

rooms (a constant demand as we have for

of sleeping seen, all
habitable rooms, and a requirement which was to be accepted in the

amending Act of 1890); powers to regularly inspect houses under con-

struction, powers to prevent rooms being built over privies, and

to prevent back-to-back houses (the need for this has already
powers
been exemplified in those cases of the Yorkshire towns cited earlier
(148).

Two years laterv in 1889, there appeared a bill to deal with the

particular aspect of house sanitation the Sanitary Regulation of

-
Buildings Bill (149). This concentrated, as its implies,
name on

sanitation onlyl but again it touched on certain matters which were

to be eventually incorporated in the amending Act of 1890. The topics

covered were the need for every w. c. to have a 'flushing service,

distinct from every other water service; no cistern to be connected

with any pipe connected to a soil drain; a soil vent to be required

309
(rising to a height of at least 21011 above the highest window); a
trap at the w. c. and an air chamber to be provided at the discon-

necting trap (150)-

These bills and suggested amendments form the basis of the sanitation

amendments to the Public Health Act. The new Public Health Act

(Amendment) Bill was first read on 12 February 18go. It then went to

a Select Committee in March, and was duly reported in May. The

discussion in Parliment. highlighted two fundamental issues - the

extent of the permissive nature of this legislation, and the question

of the extension and adoption of these controls by the rural

authorities. The granting of this extension to rural authorities

was to be the most significant development in the operational aspects

of building control, whilst granting of powers to extend the range

of by-lhw control over further areas of building wasjong. overdue.

The Royal Assent came in August 1890 (151). Powers to make building
by-laws now became much easier for the rural authorities. Previously,

under the 1875 Act, every urban authority had possessed the powers

of section 157, but these powers could only be conferred on a rural

authority by order of the Local Government Board - they could not be

adopted by a rural authority. Now under section 23 of the 1890

Amendment Act the rural authority could adopt these powers. This

method was not open to an urban authority, who could not obtain the

powers of section 23 alone and who, in order to get them, had still

to adopt the whole of Part III of the Act.

The Act gave powers for the extension of by-law control to the following

matters:
1) a secondary means of access to buildings for the removal of house

refuse. This had been optional up to 1890, now a local authority could

make a by-law requiring this provision,

2) a minimum height for habitable rooms was allowed, but no precise

dimension was given. It was generally known that the Medical Depart-

ment of the Local Government Board preferred 91011 though this was
modified in practice to 81611 and at times even 81011 was allowed
often
( 152) p
3) The regulation of hearth construction was now allowed. It will

310
be recalled that this had not been possible under the 1875 Public
Health Act, since a hearth was not taken to be part of the wall
structure (although model clause 42 had allowed "back hearths" as
part of the wallp
4) Controls could now be set in the by-laws for the sizes of timber
joists, rafters and purlins, for the floors and roofs of new buildings,,
and for staircasesv
5) The w. c. had now to be kept supplied with sufficient water for
flushing and cleaning the drainsl and there was now also the power
to ensure the proper paving of yards.

This forms the basis for a new series of additions and amendments
to the Model By-laws, as well as the extension of the by-laws into

rural areas, and the account and analysis of these developments will
be resumed in chapter IX.

In reviewing this chapter the first point to note is how once again
the mood was rightl at least in the professional quarters, for some
form of national building act in the mid 1870's. To architects its

advantages held considerable appeal, as indeed they still do in

certain quarters today. Here was the chance for a single piece of

properly co-ordinated legislation, embracing all aspects of building

control and incorporating the most practical and universally

accepted standards. Any architect practising anywhere in the country

could design a building for any town - and as practices were expanding

this was no small consideration - in the confident knowledge that

his design would not be jeopardized by some obscure local by-law.

I, ondonq where the level of building regulations was, as we have seen

in chapter IV, now at its lowest point, would also have benefitted

by having/brought into a national measure. But the power of local

authorities, with their own prejudices and local politics9 was still

apparently the stronger force. Whilst a national statute could now

be accepted for public health (although it largely
was a consolidating
and it still excluded London), a national for building
measure statute
acceptable. Building controls were being
was not still seen as more
a part of the public health The
properly sphere. mood may have been

311
right in some circles, but in the circles that maintained the controls,
tradition held back any progress.

The right of a town to establish its own rules, to respect local trad-
itions and practicesq however outdated or corrupt they might have been,

still held the stageg as did the general suspicion of London's inter-
ference, although developments in communications were breaking down
those barriers. Yet seen from a town some distance from London, what
justification had the Local Government Board's officials in London to

pronounce on the building practices of that towng particularly when the

Model By-laws could not be put into practice in the very town in which
they were produced, namely London itself? Considerable power neverthe-
less lay with the Board, for if a town chose to prepare its own by-laws
and then submitted them as required to the Board for approvaig the
Board couldq in its own wisdom, choose not to sanction any by-law which
strayed too far from the example set in the Model By-laws. The final

power however rested with the local authority - the by-laws were only
permissive, and if they chose not to enforce them there was little the
Local Government Board or any higher authority could do about it.

The actual Model By-laws themselves, as technical clausest were a

progressive step towards a more rational and centralized control.

They were more elaborate and more consistent than any previous set of

regulations, which was to their authors' credit, and they incorporated

much that was sound from the earlier legislation. They did not. how-

ever, matr. h up to the new demands of an increasingly complex building

world, whose novelty was always some way ahead of a cautious

legislature. Their standards were not particularly severe, they

limited in their scope (as was observed at the time),, they

were and

should not have. had to wait until 1890 before they could be officially

extended to control such essentials as timber construction, room

heights and hearths.

The Model By-laws also betray another trend which was not anticipated
in the earlier legislation - namely that of an educative function.

They became over the years something of a textbook on basic building

construction, particularly when they were reinforced by the annotated

versions published by Charles Knight. Considering the amount of
'jerry-buil ding' in speculative housing, it is understandable and the

312
results of this educative role in raising the standard of building

construction must not be underestimated. They established a level

of acceptable building constr-uction, and it would be churlish to blame

them entirely for the monotonous product that resulted from the

application of their standards. The stubborn attitude of some of the

more arrogant officials, who would tend to lay down the law with a

rigid insistence, resulted in the by-laws being placed in a very

poor light. This was particularly the view as seen from the higher

end of the building spectrum, by any architect for example whose

experience and expertise was being brought into question. At the

other end of the spectrum the local speculative builder could shelter

safely behind the minimum standards and assistance of the local

officials.

Away from the level of practice, at the level of formulationthere

were signs of more mutual understanding between the various profes-

sionals engaged on the drafting of the by-laws, as the demands of

building became more technically complicated. The voice of the

architect and engineer was heard with greater effect, but the medical

profession seems to have suffered something of an eclipse. Their

health controls were difficult to substantiate with accuracy. 'and as

the architect and engineer in practice encountered these apparently

precise rules)their actual imprecise basis became more apparent and

they continued to lose credibility.

of the architects and engineers whose voices were heard in this

periodlit is once again that of Joseph Boult which catches the

attention with his sensible and relevant analysis of the problem.

And with Boult there is coupled the re-emergence of Liverpool itself,

coming back into a leading position in the field of building regula-

tion in the 1880's after a low point in the prececling decade. With

the support of the Royal Commission's recommendations made in 1885

regarding open space about working class dwellings there is now a

J
interest in that topic, and it is Liverpool which in 1890
renewed
the example of the 45 0 angle to determine the relation between
sets

open space and building height -a device which is to be adopted and

by London in its next major Building Act in 189ý.

varied

There are two final points. to note. One is the interest and relevance

313
of scientific enquiry which, however crude, continues to be stressed

and to grow in importance. The pursuit of the analysis of ground

and air poisoning, by certain laboratories in Europe,, is one of the

more intriguing examples of this interest. The second point was

perhaps not so obvious at the timeg but it was equally as important,

and it becomes of more relevance as this particular history develops.

it is the growing awareness of the elements of what we would now call

urban and town planning matters. Should not the streets, it was

askedg respect the slope, of the terrain and the housing be related

to the aspect of the sun? Furthermore, if elevations are now

required to be submitted in some towns - purely, as it was said, to

help the inspectors interpret the plans - we are not too far away
from the point when the appearance of the building and its relation
to the context of the street comes to play a more significant part
in the judgement being made by the local official and his lay

committee. These are the early signs of a wider understanding of

the possibilities of broader controls, the effects of which were
to become clearer as the garden city and town planning movement

emerges at the end of the century. But these must wait until a later

chapter : it is time now to return to the main theme and to resume

the developments in London as they occur over approximately the same

period, from 1875 to 1891-

314
NOTES TO CHAPTER VI

I In the discussion following T. Roger Smith, "On the Metropolitan

Building Act", Architectural Association. 17 March 1876.
B. Vol-34 No. 1730 1 Apr 1876 P-319-
2 B. Vol-34 NO-1741 17 June 1876 P-594-
3 B. Vol-34 No. 1743 1 July 1876 p. 635-
4 B. Vol-34 NO-1743 I July 1876 p. 634.
5 Ibid.
6 B. Vol-34 NO-1742 24 June 1876 p. 607-8.
7 Ibid.
8 R. I. B. A. Transactions Vol XXVIII, 1878, p. 294-5-
9 B. Vol-35 No. 18og 6 Oct 1877 P-997-
10 B-Vol-36 NO-1834 30 Mar 1878 P-317-
11 R. I. B. A. Transactions, Vol =III 1878, p. 277-
12 Ibid. p. 282.
13 Lbid. p. 281.
I/* Ibid. p. 281.
15 Ibid. p. 281k.
16 Ibid. p. 291-292.
17 Local Government Board Fifth Annual Report, 1875-6, p. liv.
18 ! bid. p. 60.
19 1875 also saw the passing of the new Chimney Sweepers Acts 38
39 Vic. cap-70- on 11 August 1875, (An Act for further
and
amending the law relating to Chimney Sweeps), but this con-
centrated on the administrative procedure for the registration
of approved chimney sweeps. This partly amended the 1840
Chimney SweepersAct 0 and 4 Vic. cap. 85, sec. 6), but certain
matters relating to the size of flues remained in force,
though rarely put into operation. The Model By-laws of 1877
did not therefore control flue sizes, and as Table 8 shows,
the clauses were all taken directly from the Metropolitan
Building Act of 1855-
20 Local Government Board Sixth Annual Report,, 1876-7s P-lx-
21 B. Vol. 34 No-1730 1 April 1876 P-319.
22 B. Volo34 No. 1732 15 April 1876 P-367.
23 B. Vol-34 No. 1742 24 June 1876 PA07-8.
24 Ibido
25 Th__eChairman was John Whichcord and the members included Arthur
Cates, Charles Fowler, J. T. Knowles, John Honeyman and J. D.
Mathewso
26 R. I. B. A Transactions, Vol. XXVII 1877-8, p. 294.
27 Presidential address to the R. I. B. A. November 1877. B. Vol-35
NoolM 10 Nov 1877 po1124.
28 Local Government Board Sixth Annual Report, 1876-71 P-lx-
29 Local Government Board Seventh Annual Report's 1877-89 P-Xcviii
30 B. Vol-35 Noo1821 29 Dec 1877 p. 1286.
31 B. Vol. 35 No. 1808 29 Sept 1877 P-970-
32 Habitable cellars remained in the 1875 Public Health Act, and
the regulations maintained those of the 1848 Public Health Act.
They remain in the Public Health Acts with little change to
their technical requirements.
33 odel By-laws, Third Edition, 1890 P-74
34 Ibid. P-3 and letter from Local Government Board to Local
Government Board to Local Authorities, dated 25 July 1877-

315
35 B. Vol-36 NO-1834 30 March 1878 P-317 and '
E. B. Ellice-Clarke M. Inst. C. E., "Some Anomalies in the Admini-
stration of the Sanitary Laws", Brighton Health Congress,
14 Dec 1881.
36 E. B. Ellice-Clark, op. cit.
37 B. Vol-35 Ný. 1808 29 Sept 1877 P-971-
38 R. E. Pownall, "Common Weal v. Bricks and Mortar" Pamphlet, London
1878-
39 E. g: J. D. Mathews. B. Vol-36 No. 1834 30 Mar 1878 P-314-7.
40 Ibid.
41 B. Vol-35 No. 18og 6 oct 1877 p. 996-7.
42 Ibid.
43 B. Vol-35 No. 1814 10 Nov 1877 P-1119-
44 B. Vol-35 No. 1809 6 Oct 1877 p. 996.
45 B. Vol-36 No. 1834 30 Mar 1878 P-314-7.
46 B. Vol-36 No. 1860 28 Sept 1878 p. 1027.
47 For example, in London a wall UP to 50'011 high and 30'0" long
could be 121 bricks thick (up to the start of the top storey)
whereas in the Model By-laws it had to be two bricks thick
(1811). If the wall was over 30'0" long, London required two
brick thicknesss for one storey - the same location in the Model
By-laws required 2y' brick thickness (2211).
48 B. Vol-36 No. 1834 30 Mar 1878 P-317-
49 B. Vol-36 No. 1834 30 Mar 1878 P-314-7-
50 Ibid.
51 R. E. Pownall, op'. cit
52 B. Vol. 35 No. 1814 10 November 1877 P-1119.
53 B. Vol-34 No. 1836 13 Apr 1876 P-387-8.
54 B. Vol-35 No. 1809 6 Oct 1877 p. 996.
55 Ibid.
56 B. Vol-35 No. 1814 10 Nov 1877 p. 1120. '
57 R. E. Pownallq op. cit.
58 There had however been a hint of it in the 1844 Metropolitan
Building Act which required the ground floor to be at least 61,
above the level of the earth.
59 B. Vol-35 No. 1808 29 Sept 1877 P-971-
60 R. E. Pownall, op. cit.
61 Ibid.
62 This was the traditional method, supported, for example, by
J. D. Mathews. see B. Vol-36 No. 1834 30 Mar 1878 P-315-
63 B-Vol-35 No. 1814 10 Nov 1877 P-1119-20.
64 R. E. Pownall, op. cit.
65 B-Vol-36 No. 1834 30 Mar 1878 P-314-7.
66 R. E. Pownall, op. cit.
67 B-Vol-35 No. 1802 18 Aug 1877 P-845-
68 B. Vol. 36 No-1836 13 Apr 1878 P-387-
69 B. Vol . 35 No. '1814' 10 Nov 1877 p. 1120.
70 B. Vol-35 No. i8og* 6 oct 1877 P. 996.
71 B-Vol-35 No. 1814 10 Nov 1877 P-1119.
72 R*E. Pownall, op. cit.
73 B. Vol-36 No. 1834 30 Mar 1878 P-314-7-
74 B. Vol-36 No. 1836 13 Apr 1878 P-387-
75 B. Vol-35 No. 1814 10 Nov 1877 P-1119.
76 B. Vol-36 No. 1834 30 Mar 1878 P-314-7.
77 Ibid.
78 B-Vol-36 No. -1823 12 Jan 1878 p. 44.
79 R. Turnor, "The Smaller English House"t London, 1952. P-172.
The drains at Ellerdale Road were r-emodelled to conform with

316
the 11trappists' view in 1928. See A-Saint, 'Richard Norman
Shawl, Yale and London, 1976. p. 182-4 and also B. Vol. 67
No. 2707 12 Dec 18949 where a correspondent refers to having
used Shaw's system successfully for 15 years, but added that
it was being changed on the orders of the local vestry.
80 B. Vol-36 No. 1824 19 Jan 1878 p. 69 and B. Vol-72 No. 2835
5 June 18979 P-513.
81 B. Vol-35 No. 1814 10 Nov 1877 p. 1120.
82 R. I. B. A. Transactions 1877-8 Vol xxvii, p. 287-
83 Ibid. p. 277-
84 B. Vol-36 No-1836 13 Apr 1878 P-387.
85 E. B. Ellice-Clark, op. cit.
86 B. Vol. 41 No. 1988 12 July 18819 P-303-
87 J. Slater, "Building Legislation", R. I. B. A. Transactions, Vol VII
18909 p. 124.
88 B. Vol. 4-1 No. 2oo6 16 July 1881 p. 88. West Ham'was currently
building 2,300 houses a year,
R. I. B. A. Transactions, Vol. XXXII, 1882, p. 182 : Angell made the
following analysis :
With 99 by-laws established, it would mean that when a surveyor
entered the carcase of a house there would be 130 distinct
provisions to observe and check. Assuming that each house was
visited only once a month, then 2,600 distinct operations would
have to be observed. But a monthly visit was obviously in-
sufficient - it should be daily, and for this he would need at
least 6 qualified men.
89 B. Vol. 42 No. 2041 18 Mar 1882, P-332.
go B. Vol. 42 No. 2043 1 Apr 1882, p. 405.
91 B. Vol. 42 No. 2043 1 Apr 1882, P-405.
92 B. Vol-45 No. 2119 15 Sept. 18831 P-370-
93 B. Vol. 45 No. 2118 8 Sept 1883, P-336.
94 B. Vol-37 No. 1889 19 Apr 18791 P-433.
95 The Times, 31 Aug 18817 page 9 col. c.
96 R. I. B. A. Transactions, Vol. IV (New Series), 18889 P-133-
(Lecture given on 6 February 1888).
97 H. D. Appleton, "Rural Sanitary Authorities and their By-laws".
Lecture to the Architectural Association. June 1883, B. Vol-45
No. 2105 9 June 18839 P-772-3.
98 B. Vol-45 No. 2122 6 Oct 1883, p. 466.
99 Knight was not the first to illustrate by-laws. Sevenoaks Local
Board for example had produced illustrations to show aspects
of their sewerage by-laws - an innovation which The Builder said
11other Boards should follow" B. Vol. 42 No. 2041 18 Mar 1882, P-330.
100 Liverpool Improvement Act 1882 (45 Vic. cap. lv) 19 June 1882.
101 R. I. R. A Transactionsl Vol IV (New series) 1888, P-147-
102 Ibid. P-147.
103 Ibid. P! 159- (E. C. Robins).
104 Ibid. P-157 (P. G. Smith).
105 -Ibid. P-159 (E. Christian).
106 F-Vol-56 No. 2402 16 Feb 1889 P-131.
107 According to T. P. Frank, it was introduced "in order to encourage
and if possible revive timber framing, that old (and once
standard) method of construction which enhanced the charm of
the older English towns... In the latter half of the 19th century
local authorities and their advisers were much afraid of timber
framed construction, but ... timber framing is stable if properly
put together and it does not lead to excessive risk of fire if

317
proper precautions are taken".
Knights Annotated Model By-laws,. Eight edition. 1928. p. 91.
108 P. P. 1883, VIII, p. 677.
109 Hansard, Vol. 280.
110 P. P. 1885, XXX-
ill Report of Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes
in England and Wales 1884. Evidence of Hill, p. 8853 and 9116.
112 Ibid. para. 8886.
113 Rev. J. Johnson, "How to Ensure Breathing Spaces" quoted in
B. Vol-52 No. 2310 14 May 1887, P-710.
114 Report on Housing of Working Classes 1884, Evidence of Laws,
para-8391-3.
115 Ibid. evidence of Armstrong. paras, 7599,7744-5,7762,7768.
116 Ibid. evidence of Chamberlain, para. 12367.
117 Ibid. para 12437.
118 Ibid. evidence of Owen, para. 354-360.
jig Ibid. evidence of Young, paras- 5995-6,6073-6,6082.
120 Ibid. evidence of Lascelles, para. 12,305.
121 Ibid. Memorandum from P. Gordon Smith, Vol II, p. 809.
TVol. 46 No. 2157
122 7 June 1884, p. 813-4.
123 Quarterly Review, No 313, Jan. 1884
124 47 and 48 Vic. cap-72.
47 Vic. cap. 12 19 may 1884, P. P. 1884, VI,
125 p. 277 and Hansard,
Vol. 287 P-115.
126 B. Vol. 46 No. 2160 28 June 1884 P-953-4.
127 B. Vol. 49 No. 2226 3 Oct 1885 P-457.
128 B. Vol. 49 No. 2214 11 July 1885 P-73.
12g Queen's Bench Division, No-718.
130 B. Vol-50 No. 2257 8 May 1886, P. 666.
131 P. P. 1887 V-P-393-
132 Hansard, Vol-313.20 Apr 1887.
133 51 and 52 Vic. cap. 52.
134 Local Government Board Eighteenth Annual Report, P. P. 1889,
Vol. XXXV , P*Cxlii.
135 B. Vol-58 No. 2455 22 Feb 1890 p. 128.
136 B. Vol-51 No. 2281 23 Oct 1886 P. 612.
137 B. Vol-51 No. 2283 6 Nov 1886 p. 682 and diagram below: -

138 B. Vol. 52 No. 2297 12 Feb 1887 p. 243-

139 B. Vol-52 No. 2307 23 Apr 1887 p. 622.
i4o Ibid.
141 B. Vol-55 No. 2382 29 Sept 1888 p. 225.
142 Ibid.
B. Vol-59 No. 2482 30 Aug 1890
143 p. 165.
144 B. Vol-54 No. 2363 19 May 1888 P-363.
145 B. Vol-55 No. 2370 7 July 1888 P-13.
146 Knight's Annotated Model By-laws, Third Edition, 1890, P-114-5.

318
147 B. Vol. 67 No. 2696 6 oct 1894 P. 239.
148 B. Vol. 53 No. 2329 24 Sept 1887 P-439.
149 P. P. 1890, VIII, p. 227.
150 B. Vol. 56 No. 2420 22 June 1889 p. 468.
151 53 and 54 Vic. cap -59-
152 Knights Annotated Model By-laws, Seventh Edition, 1905, p. 191.

319
MODEL BY-LAWS AS TO NEW STREETS AND BUILDINGS 1877 TABLE 8
(under the Public Health Act 1875 : 38 and 39 Vic. cap. 55 Sheet I
Sec-157.
DATE: 25 JulY 1877
SOURCE: Seventh Annual Report of the Local Government Board
1877-8 Appendix A p. 86.
Reference in Text : page 27&

CLAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

design and construction.
Summary of contents ANTE POST

STREETS
3 Level of streets - to be of the
easiest practicable gradient through- T21. c4
length new
out entire and to connect
properly to other streets.
4 Carriage road = 361011 min. width T7-cl T21-c5

5 Every street over 1001011 length to be a

a carriage road.
6 Non-carriage road, not over 1001011 T21. c6
long to be 241011 min. width, provided: - T7-c2 and
such street is not the principal Tq. c6
approach to a building, but only and
a secondary access for removing T10. c6
contents of the privy, ashpit or
cesspool.

7 Carriage road (361011 overall) shall T7-ci T21. c18

have: - and
a) carriageway = 241011min. c2
b) falls from centre of road to
side channels to be 3/811 min.
and 3/4" max.per foot of
carriageway width.
C) Footpaths on each side = 1/6th.
min. of entire width of street
(i. e. 6, oll).
d) Fall on footpaths = 21" per foot
(non paved),
ill min, foot.
= .21" max. per
(paved, flagged or ashphalted)
e) Footpath kerb = 3" min, 7" max,
height above channel of
carriageway).
8 Every new street to have, at one end T7-c: t T21. cq
at least, an entrance as wide as the T18. c8
street and open from the ground
upwards.

STRUCTURE
9 No foundations on unsuitable material T7. c6 T21. c1O
(fa-ecal matter or impregnated with T11. cl

1ý

320
TABLE 8
Sheet 2

animal or vegetable matter) - all such

material to be removed from the site.

10 Whole ground surface or site of house new Tg. ciO

to be covered with asphalte or cement Til. cl
concrete 611 min. T18. c11

11 Walls - of good brick, stone or other T7-c7 T21. c14

hard and incombustible material, Til. c2
properly bonded and solidly put Tq. c11a
together '
with: -
a) good mortar (e. g. lime and clean
sharp sand),
b) good cementt
c) good cement with clean sharp sand. new
12 Cross wall, when used as a return wall T6. T21-C15
in determining the length of an First T. 14. c8
external or party wall, to be as Schedule
clause 11 above.

13 No part to overhang T21. c16

of a wall any T6. cl
wall beneath it,, except for archi- and CZ T14. c2
tectural ornaments or a properly Tq. c13
constructed corbel.

14 Every built at an angle to another

ne w T21 C17
to be bonded to it. .
wall properly

15 Every wall to rest on proper footings T6. c8 T21. c18

(for sizes of footings see wall T11*. c1
thickness schedule Table 8 sheet14).

All footings to T21. C19

-16 rest on solid ground T7. c6
or on sufficient thickness T14. cl
of con-
crete or some solid and sufficient
substructure.
17 Every wall to have
a damp proof course T4. ScC T21. c2O
(lead, asphalte, slate, etc) beneath in- T17-c4
level of lowest timbers and at height directly T11. c2
of 611 min-above surface of ground T9-C17
adjoining the wall,

Rules for height T21. c2l

18 measuring and T6. c6
length of walls: Tll*. c6
a) height of storeys: to C8
i) topmost storey - from floor
level to underside of tie. If
no tie, then up to half the
vertical height of the rafters.
ii) other storeys - from floor
level to next floor level new
above.
b) height of walls2
From top of footing to highest
(gable
part of wall = to half
height of gable). II
c) length of walls - from centre to T6. c6
L-I I

321
TABLE 8
Sheet 3

return (If T21. c2l

centre of walls. only
the return walls are external, party Tl1* toc6
or cross walls, properly bonded and
built these by-laws).
c8
as per
.
A cross wall is a cross wall only new
if it is carried up to the top of
the topmost storey, and if recesses
and openings therein do not exceed T6. ScI
half the vertical wall area in
each storey.
19 Wall thicknesses : domestic : external T6. T21. c22
and party walls (bricks 911 min. length
or stone in horizontal beds) see wall
thickness schedule Table 8, sheeth-12.
20 Wall thickness : public/warehouse T6. T21. c23
building external and party walls
(bricks 911 min. or stone in horizontal
beds) see wall thickness schedule
Table 81 sheet 15.
21 Cross walls - as above, but 2/3 min. T6. ScI T21. c24
of the thickness prescribed for walls T14.
under cl. 19 and 20 and never less
than 911 thick.
But if cross wall carries an external
wall then whole of cross wall to be
same thickness as external wall. new
22 Walls not of good bricks, not less
than 911 long or stone not in hori-
zontal beds :
a) stone or clunches of brick not T6. ScI Tq. c22a
in horizontal beds, then thick- T14. ScI.
ness to be 1/3 greater than
schedule.
b) other suitable materials : to be
same thickness as for bricks as new
per clauses 19 and 20.
23 If openings in external walls are T6. cl3 T21. c26
greater than 1/2 the vertical area
of a storey then :
a) sufficient piers or other supports
to be added to carry super-
structure,
b) sufficient piers or other supports
at corners abutting streets,
C) such piers to be within 3'0" of
corner or angle of street.
24 Warehouse class - loophole frames T6. cl/k Tg. c24
(for goods delivery) to be lit'2 min.
from face of external wall.
All other woodwork, in all buildings TlLk. c5
T7-c9
to be 411 min. from external face of
external wall (except for bressum-
mers, storey posts under bressummers
and door and window frames to shops).

322
TABLE 8
Sheet 4

25 Parapet - 911 thick, 1211 above T7. c8 Tq. c25a

highest part of roof or gutter, to and T14-c57
any external wall within 151011 of T6. cI6
another building.

26 Party wall 911 min. thick to project T6-cI7 T21. c28a

above roof. Ti4-c59
i) warehouse: 3'0" projection above Tq. cý6
roof or gutter.
other buildings: 15" projection
above roof or gutter.
ii) party wall to project 1211 higher
and wider than any turret,
dormer or lantern light within
4'011 of party wall,
iii) party wall to project 1211 min. T7. c8
above any roof that is opposite
to or within 41011 of party wall.
Party wall to corbel out, when eaves
project beyond face of building, to
full extent of eaves and to heights
as in (i) above.
27 Top of parapet to be properly coped T4. Sc. D TII. c2
or otherwise protected. T21. c2g

28 No openings allowed in party walls. new T21-C30

29 No recesses in external or party T6-cI3 T21-C31

walls unlesst T14-c54
i) the back is 911 min. thick,
ii) sufficient arch over the recess.
iii) the total vertical area of
recesses in each storey where
backs less than 911, is not more
than -21the total vertical wall
area,
iv) side of recess nearest inner
face of external wall is at
least 131211 distant from such
face.

30 No chase to be wider than 1411 nor more T6. cI8 T21-C32

than 4111 deep, nor with less than 911 T14. c6o
2
thizkness at back or at side, nor less
than 131" from other chase, nor within
7'0" from chase on same side of wall
nor less than 1312" from a return wall.
31 No bond timber, plate, block, brick T6. cI5 T21-C33
or plug of wood to be in any party T14-c56
wall.

32 No end of a bressummer, beam or T21-C34

joist to be less than 011 from T14-c56
2 centre
of party wall.

323
TABLE 8
Sheet 5

All to be borne on a template T6. c15 T14. c56

33 girders
of stones iron, terra-cotta or
vitrified stoneware.

311 Every bressummer to have a bearing of T21-c35

411 min at each end, on stone or brick T14-c56
pier or timber or iron storey post, in
addition to its bearing on a party wall
and other storey posts, iron columns, T4. ScD Ti4.656
stanchions, piers as necessary to
carry superstructure.

35 All open spaces in partitionsq or

between joists to be stopped with
new DEFUNCT
brickworkq concrete, pugging etc at By 1904
every floor and ceiling.
36 CHDINEYS
Every chimney to be on proper foot- T6. c2O T18-c36
ings and solid foundation (as T21-c36
adjacent wall) and properly bonded T14. c64
to such wall - except corbels, which
are allowed so that chimney does
not corbel out more than the thick-
ness of the wall underneath.
37 Inside of flues to be rendered or T18-c37
pargetted (unless fireproof stone- T21-c37
ware piping III thick min. is used and T14. c64
unless spandril angles filled solid
with incombustible material). Back
or outside of flue (when not on
external wall) to be rendered when
brickwork is less than 911 thick.

38 Every flue for a steamboiler, close new T21-c38

fire, etc. in manufactory or hotel T14. c64
etcq to be surrounded with 911 min.
brickwork, for height of 101.0t' min.
from floor level upwards.

39 Chimney opening to have brick or T6. c2O T21-c39

stone arch or wrought iron bar. If T14. c64
breast projects more than 4111 and
jambs at side are less than 1321", then
abutments to be tied together by
iron bar, 18t' longer than opening
and turned down at ends and built
into jambs.

40 Jambs to be 9" min, width. T21. c4O

Chimney breast brickwork to

to c42
41 and
and
flue 412" min.
=
42 Back of chimney opening (in
party T14. c64
wall) in kitchen to be 911 min. thick
for height of 610t, above chimney
opening and back of flue.

324
TABLE 8
Sheet

Back of other from T21. c4O

chimney openings, T6. c2O.
hearth to 1211 above opening 4-PI-11
in to cL12
=
external wall and 911 in non external and
wall. T14. c64
43 Upper side of flues at angles less T21-C43
than 450 to the horizontal to be 911 T14. c64
thick.

44 Arch to carry flue to be supported new DEFUNCT

by wrought iron bar. Bar secured to by 1904
wall by 42111min. one bar per every 911
of width of soffit of arch.
45 Chimney shaft - 42111brick or stone T6. c2O T21. c44
all round to height of 3'0" min. T14. c64
above roof, gutter, etc, at highest
point.

46 Chimney shaft - max height =6 times T21-c45

the width (except for factories T14. c64
etc)
or unless bonded to another chimney
or otherwise secured.

47 No iron holdfast to be nearer than T21. c46

211 to inside of flue. T14. c64
48 No timber to be nearer than 911 to T6. c2O T21-c47
inside '
of flue. T7-cI1 T14. c64
No timber under chimney opening to T6. c2O T14. c64
be nearer than 1511 to surface of he T18-c47
hearth,
No wooden plug to be nearer than 6tt T7-cII T21-c47
to inside of flue or chimney T14. c64
opening-
49 When brick or stone of chimney is T6. c2O T21. c48
less than 911 thick and face is less
than 211 from timber, then such face
to be properly rendered.
50 No openings for ventilating valves T6 c20 T21. c49
etc to be less than 911 from any T7: cII T14. c64
timber.

51 No smoke pipe to be less than 911 T6. c21 T21-c5O

from timber, T7-c11 TI4-. c66

ROOFS
52 Roof and turrets, dormers, lantern T6. cIq T21-c51
lights etc to be covered with T7-cIO Ti4. c6i
slate, tile, metal etc (except for
door or window frames to any
turret, dormer, lantern light sky-
light etc),
Every gutter, shoot, or trough in new T21. c6O
roof to be of incombustible T7. c22 T14-c73
material. TIO. c52

325
TABLE 8
Sheet 7

SPACE ABOUT BUILDINGS AND VENTILATION

53 Clear open space to be provided at T21-c52
front of house (except for porticoes, T1O. c53
gatesq fences etc UP to 71011 high) for
241011 min. to opposite side of street new
or to boundary of lands immediately
opposite, and to extend the whole
width of the frontage of house.
54 Clear open space at rear of house T7-c13 T21-c53
(except for w. c. earth closet, privy also T12. c14
or ashpit) of 150 sq. ft. total. To Llpool T1O.c54
extend the entire width of building Sanitary
and distance across to be 101011 min. Amendment
and If height of building = 15'Ot' Act 1864
then distance across to be 15'Ot'
min or if height of building = 25'0"
then distance across to be 2010" min# Bldg Act
or if height of building = 35'0" or 1890 -
over then distance across to be (450 angle)
25'0" min. tnd then
(Height to be measured from level 0
T14. c4i
of open space to half the vertical
height of the roof or to the top of
parapet, whichever is the higher)-
see diagram on Table 10, sheet 4).
55 Every wall of every storey which T21-c54
abuts the open space (as in cl-54)
to have windows to the open air for new
ventilation
56 Lowest storey - to have boarded T21-c55
floor, on joists 3" clear of site T14-c70
concrete or asphalte covers with T1O. c56
sufficient air bricks.
57 Every habitable room to have at T7. c-16 T21-c56
least one window to external air. T14. c70
Total area of windows; 9 clear of
sash frames, to be at least 1/10th
the floor area of the room. One
half of the window to be openable
and the opening part to extend to
the top of the window.

58 Habitable room without a fireplace T7-c17 T21-c57

or flue to have special means of
ventilation i. e. an aperture or
airshaft of 100 sq. in. min.
59 Every public building to have T7-c18 T21-c58
adequate means of ventilation, (DEFUNCT
BY 1928)

326
TABLE 8
Sheet 8

DRAINAGE
6o Subsoil to be properly drained. T7. c22 T21. c59
see also
TIO. c6o
61 Sufficient drainage for lowest new T21. c6i
storey of building.
62 Pipes to be glazed stoneware ot T7. c2O T21. c62
similar - not less than 4" dia
watertight joints.
If under building then at depth
equal to dia. of drain - laid in
straight line - laid in concrete T7. c21
6" thick min. all round -
ventilated at each end - inlets to
be trapped,
63 Trap at point before drain dis- T21. c63
into new
charges a sewer.
64 No right-angled junctions - T7. c21 T21. c64
junctions to be oblique in line
of flow.
65 Ventilation of drains - by two T7. c21 T21. c65
untrapped openings: -
a) at disconnecting trap prior to
entering main sewer and
b) at farthest end, to a height to
prevent foul air to escape into
building (1010" min) OR
the reverse arrangement of a and b
above.
Openings to have gratings over.
Ventilation pipe bore size not to
be less than pipe to which it
connects and not less than 411. No
bends or angles in vent pipes,
unless unavoidable.
Soil pipe may be used as vent pipe.

66 No inlet to drain (except w. c. ) to

be inside a building. new T17. ci9
Soil pipe from w. c. 41t dia. min. and c20
on outside of building, to carry T21. c66
upwards to vent to open air. T13-c39
Bath and sink wastes and overflow
pipes from 'safes' to discharge
in open air over channel or trapped
gulley at least 1811 distant. (If
used for conveying solids or liquid
filth then pipe to be as for soil
pipe to w. c. as above.
67 W. C. and Earth Closet. T21. c67
One side to be on external wall. new T13-c39

327
TABLE 8
Sheet 9

68 Window to w. c. to be 21011 x 1101t T7. c23 T21. c68

min. in external wall and to have T13-c39
air brick also.
69 Cistern required tow. c. Proper T18. c6g
design of pan, non-absorbent etc, new TU-09
no D-traps.

70-72 Earth Closet - receptacle required* T1O. c71

73-79 Privy 610"

min from house
- - certain
distance from water supply for T7. c23 T17. c25
drinking - access for cleansing T13-c39
ventilation to open air at top
non absorbent floor - seat con-
struction - size of receptacle etc.
80-85 Ashpit 61011 min from house T7. c25 T17-c31
- - not
near drinking water to T13-c39
- of size
take one week's accumulation of
ashes etc - pit to be of 911 brick-
work, rendered, flagged and slate
floor.

86-89 Cesspool distance from T7. c211 T13-c39

- certain
house and from drinking water T17-c39
- of
easy access for cleaning - contents
not to be carried through house -
not to be connected to sewer - built
of good brick work, rendered, with
9t1 min well puddled clay around
brickwork and beneath to be
-
ventilated.

90-99 (By-laws for

closing buildings unfit
for habitationand administrative
matters concerned with notices for
the deposit of plans etc).

PRELDIINARY MATTERS
I Interpretation of terms.

2 Exempted buildings: -
Royal buildings, lunatic asylums, T7. c12 also see
sessions houses, gaols, river TIO. c2a
canal and dock buildings, mine
buildings, buildings under the
Improvement of Land Act 1864,
buildings authorized by the
Secretary of State.
ALSO
Plant houses, poultry houses,
T6. c6 T14. c201
aviaries etc at least 101011 from
and
other buildings, not heated by hot
T7. c12
water and with detached fireplace
(if any) and with no flue of any

328
TABLE 8
Sheet 10

kind inside.
ALSO
Any building not public, not over T6. c6 T14. c201
301011high, not over 125,000 cu-ft- and
not habitable or used for employ- T7. c12
ment, at least 81011 from street and
at least 30'0" from nearest building
or land adjoining.
Any building, not public, over 30'0"
high, over 125,000 cu. ft. not
habitable or used for employment, at
least 30'0" from street and at least
601011 from nearest building or land
of adjoining owner.
ALSO
Any temporary hospital for infectious
diseases.

NOTES

Railway buildings were still exempted by reason of Section 157

of the Public Health Act of 1875-
2) Sizes of chimney flues were still covered by the Chimney Sweepers
Act of 1840 0 and 4 Vic. cap. 85 sect. 6) - at 1411 x 911.

329
WALL THICKNESS SCHEDULE TABLE 8
Model Building By-laws 1877 Dwelling Houses Sheet 11

HEIGHT 90-1001011 HEIGHT 8o-go, ol

1 32
11"

top two "

13-21
13-12" storeys top two

18" 13,21* storeys

rest rest
18'
rest
18 " 221 /'

18" "
22 -21

22* 262-Ift
22' 26-21-"
26" 30-21 26 30-21"

Length Length
UP to 45'0" 451011 45'0"
over UP to 45'011 over

HEIGHT 70-80,011 HEIGHT 60-70'0"

"
1321
top two
]L ]
storeys 13-21#
13-21* A'
top two
IN
I
13YE
rest 18"rest storeys
rest
18"rest
18 22j-
18,22-21*

22 262
2e2, 26-21"

Length Length
to 451011 45'Otl UP to 45'0" 45'0"
up over over

HEIGHT 50-60,011 HEIGHT 40-50 1Oll

11

13-21-' IN
13-Y t
rest rest 9 top
"v
13-, I
U-1221
rest st
est
18" rest
180
22" 18*

Length Length
up to 451011 over 45'0" up to 30' 30'-45' over 451

330
TABLE 8
Sheet 12

HEIGHT 30-40'0" HEIGHT 25-30'0" HEIGHT UP TO 251011

1 9 top 9 top
9 top
Ii top storey
rest 9#9*
UT 132 13-21- # 13-21"rest
18,1 rest
Length up any length Length up to Length over
to 351 over 35'0" 301 and not 30' or more
more than 2 than 2
storeys storeys

1) If any storey is over 16 times in height the thickness of its

walls, the wall thickness is to be increased by 1/16th part of the
storey height and walls below increased in proportion.
2) Every external and party wall in any storey over 10#011high to
be 1312" thick min.
3) In walls over 60,011 high and 45'0" long, or in storey height over
16 times the wall thickness, the extra thickness may be confined
to piers properly distributed - of which the total widths w 1/4
the length of the wall. Width of piers may be reduced if projection
is proportionately increased, the sectional area not being
diminished and projection of such pier is not to exceed 113 of its
width.

331
WALL THICKNESS SCHEDULE TABLE 8
Model Building By-laws 1877 Public or Warehouse Class Sheet :13

HEIGHT 80-10010" HEIGHT 60-80101,

Length up to 45'011 over 45'011 up to 45'0" over 451011

Thickness
at base 2611 30" 2211 26-2111
Thickness
for top 13-2 13-2 13-21" 13-21

1610" of wall

HEIGHT 5o-6ololl HEIGHT 40-50'0't

Length JuP to 45'O'llover 45'0"lluP to 30'0"130'0"-45 10111over 45'

Thickness
at base 22" 2611 18l' 2211 2611

Thickness
for top 13 -21 lit
13-Y 1312" 3
Iff
16,011of wall

HEIGHT 30-401011 HEIGHT 25-30'0"

Length I UP to 35'0" 135'0"-45'0"l 41-5'01111UP

to 45 1011lover 45'
over

Thickness
13-21 13-12
at base 1811 2211 1811
Thickness
13126 13-21-
for top 13-21" 13
13-21
Woll of waii

HEIGHT UP TO 25. 'Ot' = for any length of wall, thickness at base

13121t and thickness for top 1610" of wall = 13-21"*-

NOTES
1) In walls not over 301011 high, the thickness of the top 161011 of
wall may be reduced to 911 thickness in the top storey, if the top
storey is not over 101011 high. (Dimensions marked with * in table
above).
2) If any storey height is over 14 times the wall thickness prescribed
the thickness is to be increased by 1/14th the height of the
storey - and the walls below increased in proportion.
3) Every external and party wall in any storey over 101011 high, to
be 1321" min. thickness.
4) Where walls are over 601011 high and 45'0" long, or the storey
height is over 14 times the wall thickness prescribed, the extra
thickness may be confined to piers properly distributed, of which
the collective width = 1/4 the length of the wall. Width of
piers may be reduced if projection is proportionately increasedt

332
TABLE 8
Sheet 14

the horizontal sectional area not being diminished, but the

projection of such piers is not to exceed 113 of its width.

FOOTINGS for all building types (see clause 15)

/to 10 IN

Off-sets to be regular.
solid wall to Projecting footings may
occupy space be omitted if adjoining
between these interferes on one
wall
two lines
side.
I V
i
,3t
base

333
MODEL BY-LAWS AS TO NEW STREETS AND BUILDINGS TABLE 9
(under the Public Health Act 1875 : 38 and 39 Sheet 1
Vic. cap-55 sec. 157
SUMMARYOF AMENDMENTSMADE TO THE ORIGINAL SET BETWEEN
1877 and 1883
(to be read in conjunction with Table 8)
SOURCE : Knight's Annotated Model By-laws. First Edition, 1883
Reference in text : page 9-94.

CLAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

No design and construction.
as per Summary of contents ANTE POST
Table 8

STREETS
6 (It was suggested that the 2410t' min.
street was now unwise, and that the
minimum should now be 36,01, for all
streets. "Indeed, that minimum width
might in many instances be increased Knight
with advantage to say 401011). 1883
It was noted that no widths were TiO. c6
specified for Back-streets, such
streets could not be required under
a by-law and indeed "the provision
of such streets might be hindered
if the by-laws prescribed a really
adequate road".

STRUCTURE
LOW LYING SITES
In low lying sites and areas used for see also
brick earth excavation, it was now TIO. ciO
possible by means of by-laws, to
control the substratum of the site
prior to building on it.
JOA Following the removal of clay etc, a (as used at T21. c12
layer(s) of sound and suitable Sculcoates
material was required sufficient to R. D. C.
elevate the site and to form a stable Yorkshire)
and healthy substratum for the found-
ations.
JOB On low lying sites near a river, the T2i-c13
clause was above, with an allowance
for cement, concrete, masonry or
brickwork as well, in order to bring
the level to a certain specified
level above the ordnance datum level.
HALF-TIMBER WORK
The following clause may be incorpo- Knight
rated: - 1883 T18. cI4
liA a) House, WO" min. from adjoining
building, external walls may have
timber framing if:
i) properly put together and spaces

334
TABIE 9
Sheet 2

between timbers filled with Knight Ti8. cl4

brickwork, and 1883
ii) 4-21-"min. of brickwork behind all
timbers and bonded to the infill
brickwork.
b) Block of 3 houses (max), 15'011 min.
from other buildings, external walls
may have timber if:
i) each house is separated by a
proper party wall, as per
relevant by-law, which projects
111 in front of any timber in the
adjoining external walls, and
ii) as for i and ii in part (a) above.
(The use of this clause therefore
modified clauses. 22 and 24, see below).
17 DAMP PROOF COURSE
It had been suggested that a vertical Tii. c2
d. p. c. be employed in cellar walls - but
it was held legally that it did not
form part of the structure of the wall,
for which the by-laws were only allowed.
However, the following alternatives
were possible
a) with two d. p. c. 's and a cavity in
the wall below the ground level,
(the cavity could then be filled
with asphalte). Iron or vitrified
stoneware wall ties were to be
specified at intervals of 31011
horizontally and 1811 vertically.
b) shows the solution suggested for
shop thresholds.

N d.p. c.

FLAWiNO FLOOM

JOIST;F

ST

0)

CAVITY WALLS
It was also noted at this time that T1O. c11
hollow (i. e. cavity walls) were now
recognised and that a special proviso
was sometimes inserted 'as otherwise Knight
some inconsistency might be held to 1883
attach to the retention of the word
"Solidly". It was also sometimes
considered desirable to further

335
TABIE 9
Sheet 3

require the cavity to be provided

with proper means of draining away
water from it".
22A (For use when clause i1A was employed) T21. c25
a) stone or clunches of bricks - walls
to be 1/3 greater than normal brick
wall.
b) wall in which brickwork equals at
least 115 the entire content of the
wall, properly distributed with
piers and with horizontal courses
or of half timber work - shall be
of sufficient thickness the same as
wall built of bricks.
24 (For use when clause 11A was employed) T21. c25
Modified to exclude also the timber
framing in external walls, as well as
the bressummer, storey posts under a
bressummer and shop door window frames.
25A (Clause 25 now modified to apply only T21. c27
to larger buildings and to exempt
small dwelling houses). Every public
building, warehouse, dwelling house
shop, etc, over 3010" high to have
parapet 1211 high, 911 thick, whenever
the building is closer than 15'0" to
another building.

26A Clause 26 now modified in many

districts so as not to apply to houses T21. c28
less than 30'011 high, provided that
the party wall is carried up properly
to the underside of the roof slates. Knight
(This clause may be omitted where 1883
clause 109 of the Towns Improvement
Act 1847 still operates).
Roof covering solidly bedded on mortar
to top of party wall - no timber to
extend upon or across the party wall.
13 (now altered to omit balconies). T21. c16
I I
r-_ __j

336
MODEL BY-LAWS AS TO NEW STREETS AND BUILDINGS TABLE 10
(under the Public Health Act 1875 : 38 and RVic. Sheet 1
cap-55 sec-157
SUMMARY OF THE FURTHER AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE ORIGINAL SET
BETWEEN 1883 and 1889
(to be read in conjunction with Tables 8 and 9)
SOURCE: Knight's Annotated Model By-laws. Third Edition 1890
Reference in text : page 304 s- 307.

CLAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

No. design and construction
As per Summary contents ANTE POST
Tables 8
and 9

2A GENERAL
EXEMPTION OF IRON BUILDINGS
The following buildings could now be T21-c3
exempt from by-laws 11 - 35 inclusive: - and
Single storey : with iron walls, not see also
over 1210" high, not over 2,000 cu. ft. T12. c12
not for human habitation, and at least
101011 boundary
Single storey t iron walls, between Knight
12 - 151011 high, not over 15,000 cu. ft. 1890
not for human habitationg 810t' min.
from street and 15'0" min. from nearest
building or land in other ownership
Single storey : iron walls, between
15-301011 high, not over 80,000 cu. ft.
not for human habitation, 810't min.
from street and 30'Ot' from nearest
building or land in other ownership.

STREETS
6 Notwithstanding the remarks made in
1883 on the topic of backstreets (see
Table 9) it was now suggested that if
A back street was included in the by-
laws, the min. width should be 1010".
However, a model clause was also
suggested as follows: - Knight
6A STREETS FOR ACCESS FOR CLEANSING ETC, 1890
NOT THE PRINCIPAL APPROACH:- T16. c3
16,011 min. width. If such street not
over 300'0" long, then the width
could be 131011 min.

STRUCTURE
10 (It was noted that if the concrete
site layer was ever omitted, then
the distance under the floor space
should be increased from 3" to 9". Knight
This would however add two courses 1890
of brickwork all round the building.
It was also pointed out that the

337
TABLE 10
Sheet 2

concrete floor was in itself satis-

factory as a floor finish in lobbies,
kitchens etc).
11 CAVITY WALLS The following by-law (see also T18. c14
could be made T9-c17)
i) width of cavity = 3" max.
ii) the two leaves tied together
by galvanised iron, tarred, iron
or glazed stoneware ties, spaced
31011 horizontally and 1811
vertically max.
iii) thickness of each leaf to be not T21. c14
421".
less than
iv) thickness of the two leaves
together, excluding the cavity,
shall not be less than the min. Knight
thickness for a solid wall of the 1890
same height and length and in the
same class of building.
v) wooden lintels under cavity walls
to have a layer of lead or
similarg on upper side, to protect
the wood work from any moisture in
the cavity.
52A All water falling on a roof to be (T7. c22) T21. c6O
received into suitable gutters, etc,
and then discharged into a pipe. (see
also cl. 60A). These two clauses
used only where section 74 of the
Towns Improvement Clauses Act 1847
(10 and llVic. cap-34) is not in
operation. (see Table 5) in rural
areas.

SPACE ABOUT BUILDINGS AND VENTILATION

53A An alternative clause for open space
in front of a building.
Where a new house fronts onto a
street less than 241011 width (i. e
pre-by-law), an open space is to be
provided in front, measured to
opposite side of street throughout
the whole line of frontage and ex-
tending to a distance equal to the Knight
width of the street plus half the 1890
difference between such width and
2410".
54 Open space at rear.
54A Alternatives were now allowed to cope T21-c53
with buildings on awkwardly shaped and
sited - for two streets meeting at T18-c53
an acute angle, at a right angle, on

338
TABLE 10
Sheet 3

shallow sites adjacent to pre by-law

streets and sites tapering at the rears Knight
A range of solutions is shown on Table 1890
10 sheet 4 overleaf).

56A Alternative - allows a 911 air space T18. c55

under a boarded floor if the ground
is not covered with either concrete
or asphalte.

DRAINAGE
60A A suitable pipe required, from roof to (T7. c22) T21. c6O
ground, connected to gutter, to receive
roof water and to carry it away from
walls and foundations of buildings.
(see also clause 52A above).

66 Possibility of regulating for 'trough T18. c67

closets' e. g. for use out of doors
for schools etc, was now recognised.
71A These clauses replaced former clause Knight T21-C71
71B 71 and 72 and were designed to 1890 T13-c39
71C prevent earth closets being fixed
inside houses.

339
TABLE 10
Sheet 4

rig

goep

I
=H
OPE

alp"t
1
AFPAes CP&N spwco

r-
ýe- 25*0*

The standard condition covered by Model By-law 54, described on Table

8, sheet 7.

1gox4ega 00A wo*

for, , 12160 a 14,
, "/("0,
o
MOUS&

*PAN OPNAO
AAOM SPA" SAOOIC&

r)?&r. -r SME&7' s7R&E'r

_5
Aý4-
&,.vWer 2S'ý"A If ti.
ma/A I. Flolw
wildfr Mo"E, IVV aa ljousr, gsb-v a4d wvder

Variations for
situations where plots
adjacent to pre by-law streets have
"
-1 to back
insufficient depth from front
to accommodate the standard condition.
Open space may be provided on two
Opposite sides of the houseq as shown
SAACO here.

67R&ST SOURCE: Knight's Annotated Model By-laws,

hwsr. 351401vfvý4 404 arword-T. Third Edition, 1890, p. 118 and 121.

340
TABLE 10
Sheet 5

Variations for sites adjoining two streets meeting at an acute angle

0
e1 YAM, lOb'N to ** )W&P, /O'd Ar /0,0

7
10 IL
F1
Pd44& (sariE)
'O(1S

,5r&Awr Ar 4x4sr z*lofl wwa

Variations for sites where two streets meet at right angles

to be least 12
a-b at c-d.
area of alble, to be least
one third of space alblc, d,

ý- 1,6
- . -Iý

HOUSr.
Nor &XCAAFOI. -Vc
zs; '04,. "v .4picur

Variations for sites which taper to the rear

SOURCE : Knight's Annotated Model By-laws, Third Edition. 1890 pp.

120,123 and 125

1 SHEFFIELD
UNIVERSITY
341 LIBROY
CHAPTER VII

LONDON : THE PRESSURES FOR CFULNGE 1875-1891

Seen against the peak achieved by the Public Health Act in 1875, and
its attendant range of Model By-laws, the lowly situation of London's
building regulation made a poor comparison. The Bill of 1874 had,

as we have seen in chapter IV, come to naught, largely as a result

of the strong pressures various vested interests had brought to bear

on the valiant Metropolitan Board of Yorks. The Act of 1855 was

still in operation, leavened slightly by the amendments made in 1862,

but its effectiveness was on the decline. One architect, H. H. Collinst

praised the scope of the new provincial by-laws which were based on
the model set, and at the same time protested that the Metropolitan
Acts were now "practically inoperative
... surrounded by ignorance,

apathy, official 'red-tapeism' in a dead letter" (1).

- all all
Neverthelessq he hoped that the Board "would not be deterred from

performing its bounden duty that of securing an efficient workable

...
Building Act" (2). The securing of such an act was to take another
twenty years, and the tribulations of its gestation and birth are the

subject of this and the following chapter the first of which

,-
largely parallels the provincial scene described in the previous

chapter.

In spite of the failure of the 1874 amending bill, the pressure for

a new measure continued to run on through 1875 and 1876. From the

medical world, the old campaigner, Dr. Liddle, was still the spokesman,

calling for new rules to prevent the erection of unhealthy houses,

houses that were damp, lacking open space and proper sanitation. It

is interesting to see that he now also included the need for sunlight
"especially for children't since, as he reported, "recent scientific
-
evidence had established the benefits of sunlight" (3). This

appears to be one of the earliest instances of any reference to sun-

light in this context. From the architectural world came protests
against the effect the current Act was seen to be having on both

342
design and construction. The effect on 'street architecture' was
particularly deplored, the restrictions on projections being singled
out (4),, and antipathy was felt generally against the dull 'hole in
the wall' character of earlier building (5)- It was hoped that the
removal of this "vexatious legislation" would provide a welcome

opportunity for more picturesque design, but to the Board's credit,

it was noted at the time that the earlier abortive Bill of 1874 had

made concessions towards both oriel and bay windows. Oriel Chambers

in Liverpool was held up at the time as an example of what could be

achieved in this direction (6). The pressure for taller buildings

was also gaining momentum. The current limit in the 1855 Building

Act was 1001011, although it was possible to go higher with the

permission of the Board of Works. Yet it was a sensitive subject,

such as the case of Mr. Butler's plan for Alexandra Mansions in

Victoria Street, Westminster, demonstrated, the controversy over

which eventually reached the House of Commons (7). Protests over

controls, or the lack of them, in matters of construction can be

considered under our three categories of fire, stability and health.

It was now generally accepted that the earlier belief in the

efficiency of stone as a fire proof material for stairs and landings

had been incorrect, and it was felt that this should now be recognised
in the legislation(B). The demands from the growing world of

commerce in the city put more pressure on the limit of 216,000 cu-ft-

of building without party walls (9), and the increasing use of the

tenement block put more emphasis on the need for proper horizontal
fireproof separation by what were strangely referred to as 'horizontal

party walls'. A seven storey block of such tenements in Northumberland

Avenue was separated horizontally by "flimsy wood" then added*The
...
Builder: quoting Paris as an example, "surely we can manage horizontal
party walls in concrete in London? " (10). The structural use of

concrete and iron was still subject to special licence and approval
by the Board of Works, and the time was also more than ripe for a

change there. Yet in the traditional field of brick walls there were
also anomalies. It was possible for example to build up to 25'0"

high in 911 brickwork, thereby allowing three storeys, which even in

the opinion of the time was considered to be beyond reason, two

storeys; being the safe maxinnim (11). The lack of any reasonable
definition of good mortar was a constant litigation (12).. and
source of

343
in the area of health, allied with structure, was the question of
building over bad ground - 'dust shoots', as the Hackney District

Board (the first to call for the regulation of this matter) called

these refuse tips (13).

The comparison with Paris was frequently made at this time and-it

served to highlight the shortcomings in London's legislation. In

Paris one had to build up to the Building Line for example, whereas
in London one could build anywhere behind the line. Parisian room
heights were 1811 higher than their London counterpartst concrete
floors and iron encased in 'plaster concrete' were the order in Paris,

and party walls, 1811 thick, went higher than those in London, up to

a maximum of 6511011 in the public boulevards (14).

The feelings of frustration at the old 1855 Building Act often ran
high. At times it could even provoke physical assault. One District

Surveyor's clerk, minding his official duty, was hit over the head

with a mallet by one irate member of the public who (his handwriting

later confirmed) had previously sent the Surveyor an anonymous letter

telling him to be careful "as he would be a corpse, and that he

ought to be poleaxed and dipped in tar" (15).

The Amending Act of 1878and the By-laws of 1879

In March 1877 the Metropolitan Board of Works, through its Building

Act Committee, unexpectedly produced a draft Bill to amend the

Building Act of 1855. "The Bill has taken the architectural
...
by surprise" 'The Builder' (16). The
and building world exclaimed
the Board were a law unto themselves. The content of the
ways of
technical clauses were not however very far reaching. A building

line 201011 from the centre of the road had been in the earlier Bill

of 1874, but there was now an attempt to control materials and,

following the pressure from Hackney, regulations to prevent houses

being built on bad sites2 made up and filled with rubbish. The

main innovation, for London, was a proposal to control certain of

these matters by means of by-laws2 and this caused some concern in

344
many circles. The Bill itself meanwhile petered out as the last

of Parliament expired in the summer (17), but by October it

session

was back on the Order Form again (18).

The proposal to control parts of buildings in London by means of

by-laws therefore coincides with the publication of the Model By-laws

for the rest of the country in the same year, 1877. But whilst it

may be said that the use of the by-law was accepted in the provinces

as a regulatory device, without a great deal of opposition - since

most of the towns which adopted them had had no previous legislation

in the form of their own Building Act, the concept was not so readily

accepted in London, even though by-laws had been in existence since

1855 to control streets (under section 202 of the Metropolis

Management Act, see page 164). The by-law lacked the conviction of

the statutory measure. As one architect put it, "we are again asked

to substitute 'uncertainty' for 'certainty' (19) and a 'Householder'

wrote to 'The Builder'. -

"By-laws subject the whole case necessarily to a state of chronic

uncertainty as to what is law and what is not law. By-laws never
had, and never will have, the force of law and place in the hands
of those making them an irresponsible power" (20).

The Bill proposed powers for by-laws to be made to cover foundations,

materials, wall constructionq theatres and music halls, and provoc-

atively, power for the Board of Works to make or alter all the by-laws

as only they themselves saw fit (21). This was naturallyq and

rightlyq received with great suspicion. Such absolute power to a

faceless authority was not to be contemplated. It would lead to

corruption and jobbery, and was therefore vigourously opposed.

Furthermore, it was seen as a retrograde step inspired by the short-

vestries, setting back severely the then current idea of a

sighted
building for the (see chapter
general set of regulations whole country

VI) (22). These fears were partly allayed some three months later

a proviso was inserted in the Bill, limiting the powers of the

when
Board in this respect of making or changing the by-laws. No changes

now be made without proper prior publication to all Interested

could

parties' - which included the R. I. B. A. at least two months before

-
final confirmation by the Secretary State (23). To dwell a
any of
little longer on this point, it is interesting to note that by 1890

the use of by-laws was generally more favourably received. The

345
London County (General Powers) Bill attempted at first to contain
all the technical matters within the statuteg atask which'The
Builder'rightly saw as being beyond the capabilities of a House of
Commons Committee to devise. This 'blunder' as 'The Builder' called
it, could have been avoided if a clause was to be inserted to allow
by-laws to be made. It was feared that a non-specialist committee
would meddle and unduly restrict the new controls (24). In the

eventg as we shall see later in this chapter, this did not happeng
but it was a close thing. Only the experience in London of the by-
laws of 1879 and 1886, backed by the example of the provincial by-
laws9 could account for this changeg though there was the added
realisation that building was becoming more complex and changing too
fast for the slow unwieldy pace of statute law. That was fine in

theoryg but in practice, as so often in the history of building

regulationg the story was rather less than satisfactory. flonly those

who have had experience in administering the existing by-laws under

the Amendment Act of 1878 can realise what a hopeless tangle they

makeg frequently rendering proceedings under them abortive and

consequently mischievous in their futile results" bemoaned one

District Surveyor in 1890 (25).

A Select Committee of the House of Commons investigated the new Bill

in March 1878, and a number of expert witnesses gave indisputable

evidence for the need for the proposed controls. Hackney was to the

fore, with the unfortunately named Medical Officer of Health, Dr.

Tripes quoting lengthy statistics to Prove the need for controls on

'unhealthy' sites. J. D. Mathews, District Surveyor for Stoke Newington,

a rather reactionary spokesman on Building Act matters, whomwe have

before in the discussions building act (see Chapter
met on a general
VI), described the common practice of selling the excavated sand

from a site and replacing it with inferior material, and also the

equally widespread practice of using garden mould and road scrapings

for mortar. Mr. Selway of the Board explained the proposed theatre

regulations, which were principally concerned with means of escape

in case of fire -a need identified in 1877 by Sir H. Selwin-lbbetson's

Committee. All these proposals received the authoritative support

of Edward Barry, and John Whichcord who, referring to the fact that

many of these rules were already in operation in the provinces,

346
affirmed that "he saw no reason why by-laws should not be laid down
for the Metropolis also" (26). A District Surveyor contributed one
further item which he felt it imperative to includes namely the

prevention of three storey walls in 911 brick-work (27). The R. I. B. A.

considered the Bill "somewhat short and summary" but for some
inexplicable reason interpreted the Board's proposals as being intended

to be a set of regulations "which would eventually apply to the whole

kingdom, to reconcile differences in local by-laws" (28).

The Bill, after its third reading in the Commons survived its passage
through the 1,ords, a Select Committee there concerning itself

principally with the theatre regulations (29), and it was finally

passed on 22 July 1878 (30).

The new by-laws appeared in October 1878 and were duly sent to the

R. I. B. A. and the Institute of Surveyors for their comments (31).

Site concrete at 911 was obviously too thick, 5" was suggested, but

in the end 61t won the day. On the hand footings proposed at
other
12" thick and projecting 611 from the side of the wall above, were
felt to be insubstantial. This reflected the general uncertainty

about the nature of concrete, yet even so, a tentative proposal was

made at this time to actually relate the thickness of the concrete

to the height of the wall (32). The quality of stone was set at

110 lb. per cubic foot - an over-precise requirement which did not

survivel but a damp proof course at 110t' above the base of the wall,

first mooted in 1870, was now to remain. A vertical damp proof

course was not included (as it had also failed to find a place in

the Model By-laws)pbut the tops of parapet walls were again blessed

with a clause requiring their protection by a waterproof and fire-

resisting material - the first time the word waterproof had been

applied to a building material (33). Rules for furnace chimneys

by-laws for these failed
were proposed, as were concrete walls - but
to pass and had to waitt the concrete until 1886 and the furnace

until 1894 (34). More the once

chimneys seriously was omission

again of controls on timber and iron construction "some day laws

-
may enact that floors and roofs shall be strong enough to stand,
but that time has not yet comett (35).

Although the professional bodies tended to support the proposed by-laws,

347
the builders, not surprisingly, took a contrary view. Over one
hundred of them met at the Guildhall Tavern in Gresham Street in

March 1879 to vent their feelings. The by-laws, they saidg were too

stringent; they would add to the cost of building and therefore the

rents paid by the middle and working classes. They could see no

hardship in building on land made up of rubbish tips, they saw no

reason for a slab of concrete on every site, the 1211 deep foundations

below the footings were surely quite arbitraryand who knew better

than they how to make mortar? It was even rumoured that the interests

of the Portland cement manufacturers were being suspiciously over

emphasised. The proposed by-laws were:

"impractical, inexpedientl
paternal, espionage a cross between
...
the Weights and Measures
Act and the Adulteration Act the Board
...
did not understand what it was doing ... costs would go up by 15-20%
children would go shoeless and a man half starve in order to
...
live in a new house'? (36).

From 'A Victim' however, came the other side of the story. The

builders on the 'rubbish shoots' were inileague with the rubbish

contractorsl removing sand from the sites and replacing it with the

rubbishq "and are they not members also of the Vestriesq District

Boards Guardian Boards, jerry builders" (37).

and as well as energetic

In their deputation to the Home Secretary, the Metropolitan and

Suburban Builders Association objected to the concrete under all

walls, the use of brick as fill, square sound bricks for internal as

well as external walls, and the composition of mortar. Only on the

of bricks were they to be successful, for the by-law in its

matter
final form called for sound well burnt bricks in party and cross

walls only below ground level and above the roof - so poorer quality
older or softer bricks and bats could still be used for the main

of these walls. The builders deputation also emphasised the

part
economic argument -coststhey said, would rise by 15%, houses would

be in short supplyand there would be an increase in foreign

competition in the building trade (38).

The new by-laws in their final form were confirmed in October 1879

(39) (Table 11 sheets 1 and 2). They had been pruned - concrete
walls were omitted and the sizes for the concrete site slab and
foundations under walls reduced. The site concrete tallied with
the Model By-laws of 1877, as did the removal of unsuitable material

348
from the siteg and the coping of a parapet wall. More specifically
defined in London were the mix for mortar and the sizes of concrete

under the footings. The damp proof course was more devious and

stringent in the London by-laws. Set at 1211 above ground in external

walls and 6t' below the lowest floor level in party or internal wallsq
it would prove difficult to comply with, and difficult to form in a

continuous course around the building- Altogether it was a muddled

performance, suffering from external pressures from the 'vested

interests' and compromised in a rather discreditable way by the Board

of Works. It did little to stave off the pressure for a complete

revision of the Metropolitan Building Act.

The Amending Act of 1882 and the By-laws of 1886.

Towards the end of 1881 the Metropolitan Board of Works approved the

resolution of its Building Act Committee that "in their opinion, it

is desirable that fresh legislation be sought" (40). The Board kept

a book in which suggestions for alterations could be entered. One

suggestion, coming from the Lambeth Vestry in October 1881, had called

for an alteration to the legislation in order" to prevent the backs

of houses being built so close together'l (41). When the Board's own
list of amendments was published in December 1881, it included therefore

a provision for further space to be left at the rear or side of a

houses as well as an open space to be left between houses built back

to back (42). The list went on to suggest an increase in the limit

to the cubic content of buildings without party walls, controls on

the layout and, more significantly, the direction of streets, and

procedural changes in the interpretation of the building line,

relaxation of the controls on hot water pipes when near combustible

materials, further controls on theatres and the regulation of timber

stacks within a certain dista-ce of the road (43)- Once again, this

last proposal was greeted with a storm of protest and was hastily

withdrawn within a month of its re-appearance (44).

Further suggestions for matters requiring reform came from the architect
Thomas Harris. Cavity walls should be allowed. It was strange, he

349
felt, to see a party wall so riddled with flues as to be virtually a

cavity wall, yet legally, in an external wall, the cavity and the

outer leaf had to be taken as additional to the basic wall thickness

laid down in the Building Act. The merits of the cavity wall were

obvious even then - it was impervious and stronger than a solid wall

using the same amount of material. Secondly, the setting back of the

window frame by 42111 did not, in Harris' afford any security

opinion,

against the spread of fire. It was, he said,

"no doubt originated in the classical tendency of the period when
the act was framed but it cripples freedom of design in
... ...
these enlightened days of arttv (45)-

But on the matter of the cubic content of buildingsl Harris questioned

the need for alteration and proposed instead the oft-repeated
alternative of recognising the "horizontal party structure" in concrete

and iron, with stairs and (note) lifts in a "continuous cavity walled

enclosure and with iron doors". Harris had in a sense achieved this

himself by using a brick vaulted basement, which thereby reduced

the measurable volume and therefore the number of party walls in the

building above. Harris suggested that flats could be built in the

same way, and with a fireproof enclosed stair (46).

Now although mortar had been included under by-law control in 1879,

the one other important area that was missing was plaster. Paddington
Vestry sent a belated memorandum to the Board of Works, requesting

some form of legislation to prevent 'road sweepings and slop' from

being used, but they were too late, the notices had already been sent

out and it could not be included in that Bill (47)- It had to wait -
and it came eventually in 1891.

In its final form the Bill (48) included controls on obstructions

(bars, gates, etc) which might impede street traffic, a curious clause

at first sightland one which would appear to have its roots in the

street controls of the 18th century Improvement Actsj but which was

in fact inserted here in order to prevent private estate roads being

too readily formed as a device to circumvent the general controls

on public thoroughfares (49). The Bill the Board powers

also gave
to prevent the formation of culs-de-sac, to provide for open space
in the forecourts of shopsl the approval of temporary iron buildings

(a matter then being paralleled in the Model By-laws), and the relaxation

350
of hot water pipes near combustible materials - but no definition was
given for 'low pressure'. Open space at the rear of buildings now went

up to 150 sq. ft. min with increases according to the length of frontage
(see Table 12, sheet 1). Some confusion arose later as to how this

was to be read in conjunction with the 1855 Building Act, T. Roger

Smith and Banister Fletcher interpreted the two Acts together (50),

whereas 'The Builder' thought that the one superseded the otherg so
that even if the rooms could be lit from a street or alley, they

must still have the space at the rear (51)- (See also the Henniken
Mews case p. 373).

Two matters dropped out of the Bill. The theatre regulations were

transferred to the Metropolitan Board of Works (Various Powers) Act

of the same year, 1882 (52), and the clause relating to the increase

in the cubic content of warehouses was deleted in March 1882. One

member of the Board of Works thought it should stay, despite the

opposition of the Insurance Companies, the opinions of the House of

Commons Select Committee and the evidence given to them in 1874 by

Captain Shaw of the Fire Brigade. But, as other members of the

Board were quick to point outj the retention of this one clause
might endanger the passing of the whole Bill. "One must stoop to

conquer" as they so poetically described their compromising

(53)- 1
attitude

At the Committee stage in the Lords there was only one slight hitch

as the Earl of Milltown took up the point about gates across streets,

suggesting the bars to such streets as Gordon Street and Euston

Squareq on the Duke of Bedford's land, which had had gates and

closure notices since 1835, were now an anachronism in the latter

half of the nineteenth century. But his call to remove this

'anachronism' was unsuccessful. Their Lordships were loathe to

.
sacrifice such traditional privileges (54), and the Bill became law

on 19 June 1882 (55).

Two matters which had been considered in 18789 namely building on

bad ground and the construction of walls, produced new legislative
measures in 1884 and 1886 respectively.

351
The unsuitable ground was in Peel Groveg Bethnal Green. This contained
the remains of some 20,000 cholera victims, but the by-laws of 1879

were powerless to stop one enterprising builder from starting to build

houses on it. A case was brought to court, but the Magistrate dis-

missed itg saying that the words 'site and foundation' could not be

extended beyond the meaning in the Act,, and the site had in fact been

properly prepared with the requisite layer of concrete - even though

they overlayed coffins stacked in graves 251011 deep, with the top

coffins only two or three fe6t below the surface. The 1879 by-law

could not be applied - but the Magistrate pointed out that the remedy
lay in the Board seeking a prosecution for a ImisdeameanourIg on the
lines of a previous case of a builder at Whitefields Chapels Tottenham

Court Road, who had been tried and successfully convicted at the Old

Bailey (56). An appeal in the Peel Grove lodged,

case was and
dismissed (57). But by then the had taken the to
scandal matter
Parliament and a special Act just to cover this matter was hastily

passed in August 1884 (58).

The legislation relating to the material and construction of walls

was the belated recognition of concrete originally scheduled, it

-
will be remembered for the by-laws of 1879. Concrete walling,

monolithic as opposed to blocks, was up to this time only allowed under

special licence from the Board of Works, and a number of patentees had

been operating within the limits of this system, such as Joseph Tall

and Henry Goodwin. It was Goodwin who brought the matter to a head

in September 1885, when he built a five storey block of artizan

dwellings in Zoar Street, Southwark, without first obtaining the

necessary sanction from the Board. When the case came to Court, the

Magistrate dismissed the summonsq saying that in his opiniong concrete

was a good material - "the Admiralty Pier at Dover having been built

from it" (59) and he thought the Board have it.

should sanctioned
'The Builder' agreedq seeing the Magistrate's decision as being only

common sense and thought that it was high time the Board of Works

"reconsidered its conservative and obstructive position regarding

concrete ... an official ban cannot be reasonably allowed any longer"

(60). At first the Board's Solicitor intended to help the District

Surveyor involved to appeal, but "on consideration" he thought it

inexpedient to appealand the Building Act Committee reluctantly

352
accepted that concrete would now have to be properly recognised. They

therefore proceeded to draft new by-laws, which went as required to

the R. I. B. A. ana the Institute of Surveyors before reaching the Home

Secretary for confirmation (61). The details of the new by-laws are

given on Table 12 sheet 2.

Not everyone was satisfied with the new by-laws. Goodwin protested
that they now virtually stopped his concrete building because of the

increase in the amount of cement which was specified - now 1: 5 as

compared with 1: 8 allowed in his earlier licences. And why was

concrete not more generally adopted, asked Goodwin?

t'Because it is against the interests of the building trade, who want
to stamp out that which is cheap and inexpensive, plus the ordeal of
red tape for the poor builder. When at last, after fifteen years, I
break through the bonds at Southwark Police Court on September 9 1885,
the Board attack me with new laws which, if passed, will stop
concrete building in the Metropolis and the solving of the problem
of housing the London Poor" (62).

The Peabody Dwelling in Bermondseyfor example, had been built entirely

concrete (63), but it is true that after this time there was a
of
decline in concrete work in London. Less emotional, more rational

and authoritative was the architect John Slater, expert on London's

legislation. He agreed that the proportion of the mix was incorrect
and that the thickness of concrete walls, set at the same as for brick

walls, was excessive. In his view the main test should have been

related to the actual quality of the cement (64). '

J,ondon County (Gene!: al Powers) Act 1890 the By-laws of 1821

and

Not specifically related to building, but a further recognition of how

far behind London was from the rest of the country in the area of

Public Healthq was the introduction by the Marquis of Salisbury in

August 1885 of the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill. This was an effort
to consolidate and amend all the acts relating to public health in

London; and to virtually complete the work left undone by the major
Public Health Act of 1875. It did not proceed further at this time
(65), but we shall return to it when it resumed its course a little
later (see page 365)-

353
Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Board of Works sought further powers in

November 1885 to control the structural efficiency, safety and fire

provisions in theatres, and once again, the regulation of timber

stacks (66). This fell by the wayside, as did a further proposgl in

December 1886 to control the subsoil of streets and the laying of

service mains (67)- Other amendments being considered by the Board

at this time included ways of improving the administration of the

Building line, which had occasionally caused difficulty in interpret-

ation (see page .374), but it was felt that Parliament would not agree
to this since the law had, in the majority of cases, worked reasonably

well since 1862. Furthermore, the Board had previously suffered a

defeat over this matter in its proposals for the abortive amending
Bill of 1874 (68).

The most provocative suggestion emanating from the Board's office in

Spring Gardens at this time was a requirement that owners of land,

when laying out large estates "should be required so as to arrange

that a suitable proportion of the land be left open and unbuilt upon

in the interest of public health and comfort? ' (69). This clause, an

early town planning measure, when taken together with proposals to

increase the size of the open space at the rear of dwellings in sub-

urban districts and to form streets wider than 4010t' in these

districts, caused a tremendous outcry when they all appeared in the

Metropolitan Board of Works (Local Management, Bill in March 1888.

etc)
Here was the Board of Works, already ailing within itself, actually

dictating how owners should use their land, interfering with the

of dwOllings for the working classes, being given the right

provision
to take land and, if a jury saw fit, buildings also in connection with

improvements. It also proposed to the provisions of the

street remove
1855 Building Act which allowed the open space at the rear of a domestic

dwelling (which could be a shop) to be built at first floor

over
level (70). And as if that wasn't enough, the Board was now to have

control over the design of all accesses to more than one dwelling

house "out of the hands of the architect" idea that was con-
- - an

sidered to be quite preposterous. It also intended to apply its open

space clause to the entire width of the rear_of every building -

"thereby diminishing at a blow every corner building in the city or

West end that may be built 11 (71),. and finally it was to control all the

material in the site around the building, up to a distance of 31011 from

354
its external walls; a peculiar provision but one which was intended
as a natural extension of the controls on the quality of material used
as backfill, and it was to be the one clause to survive (72)-

But other events were now overtaking the unfortunate Metropolitan

Board of Works. Rumours and revelations of unethical conduct abounded
and a full scale Government enquiry was established in June 1888 to

enquire into its workings. The Board's Theatre Bill had been rejected
by the Commons in April, by 144 to 18 - "no doubt due to feeling that
it is futile to pass legislation to give powers to a Board whose
course is probably nearly run" (73). The fate of the Board was no
longer in doubt by August 1888, and it became clear that it would
disappeart a victim of circumstances not entirely of its own makingg
and a new body, the London County Council, would emerge as a result
of the Local Government Act of that year, to take over all the former

powers of the Board and to administer the Building Act, all as from
the 1st April 1889.

Two points relating to Building Act matters cameout of the Royal

Commission Enquiry into the Metropolitan Board of Works. One concerned

the building line and here the professional world were surprised to

hear Lord Herschell, a member of the Commission, and formerly Lord

Chancellor when the De Vere Gardens case (see p. 374) was before the

Courts, explain that "a house might be in more than one street for

the fixing of the building line" (74), and that until a line of fronts

had been defined by the Superintending Architect, no offence could be

committed "because there is nothing to project beyond". Furthermore

he expressed the view, quite contrary to the practice of the previous

thirty two years, "that the term 'buildings for trade or manufacture'
could be applied to retail shops'l (75). Although he was speaking lex

cathedralpthese learned pronouncements, so much at variance with what

was assumed to be the accepted practice, caused more than a minor

ripple throughout the building world, but seem hardly to have troubled

the judge. They only served to confirm the great distance that lay

between the law and the world of building. The second point came
from the Commission's disclosures on the fire at Whiteley's Store in

1887, where four people had died. The jury noted that the serious
danger which resulted from the unscientific construction where iron

work was largely used, "calls for immediate action with a view to

355
such amendment of the Building Act as will secure the requisite super-

visions" (76). Almost to prove the point about the uncertainty of

ironwork, a new building with an iron frame in Great Titchfield Street

fell on 9 November 1888, killing six workmen.

At the very end of 1888 there was one further attempt to amend the
Building Act, but it got no further than its first reading in April
1889, largely due again to the impending demise of the Metropolitan
Board (77). The initiative passed to the new L. C. C. and one of their
first moves was to establish a Building Act Committee (continuing the

Board's precedent) and its first commitment, apart from matters of

administrationq was to look at the problem of preventing Ijerry

building' (78). This was later referred to a sub-committee, who in

turn made representation to the Parliamentary Committee with a call
for the amendment of the existing law in certain respects (79)-

Whilst the new L. C. C. was finding its feet, there was no shortage of

advice being offered. The example of France was again brought to the fore$

when Francis Hooper, the holder of the Godwin Bursary, delivered his

paper on 'Building Control in Paris' to the R. I. B. A. in December 1888.

Rights of light and effective street alignments were singled out by

Woodward in the discussion following Hooper's very detailed and

technical paper, as being worthy of consideration by the new County
Council. The scale of French streets was', he remarked, sadly lacking

in London - there was the new street (Rosebery Avenue) from Holborn

Town Hall to the Angel at Islington, a mere 50'011 wide - why, he

protested, even the neighbouring and older Grays Inn Road was 60,011

wide. The other important and associated topic was the height of
buildings. Charles Fowler, in the same disussion., referred to this,
that there was in fact a short Bill currently before Parliament
noting
to regulate this matter, but "it was crudely and negligently drawn".

Yet the matter was of current concern, for in June 1889 a Bill appeared

under Mr. Whitmore's instigation, to restrict the height of buildings

in London. In this, no building, except a church or chapel, in a

less than 601011 wide could be more than 601011 high, nor in a
street
over 60,01, wide could it be higher than 601011 without the
street
of the L. C. C. (80).
sanction

The comparisons with France were enlightening, even though their

356
fundamental premises were not so palatable in England. It was said that

the main difference was that in Paris the architect should govern,

unlike in Englandq and that in France the public governed the individual,

an attitude unknown in England. The liberty of the individual was

sacredq or so it was still popularly assumed. The Board of Works,

typically, had never referred architectural matters to architects -

indeedq it did not have any architects amongst its members (81).

Also significant were the views of Thomas Blashill, now the first

Superintending Architect for the new L. C. C. (a transfer from the Board

of Works who had appointed him in 1887). He was quite adamant that

the Building Act required a good deal of amendment, and he was all in

favour of relaxations to allow more picturesque elevations and to

allow projections, and he thought the 4-111

2 recess for window frames to

be absurd, except in narrow streets, reflecting a move for the return

to the style of Queen Anne (82). That in March 1889. Later in

was

the same year he gave a more detailed criticism in a paper to the Art

Congress in Edinburgh. The constraints of no combustible materials

in walls, the limit of openings in external walls to half the wall

one

area, the restriction on building height in streets less than 50'0"

wide and the limits to projections all these restricted

- severely

the possibilities of design for architects:

"They to him whole

close chapters of the most charming and interesting
architecture in Europe. That the old timber buildings, or parts Of
them, are often imitated in cement and in iron, shows how impatient he
is of such limits" (83)-

(Norman Shaw would coat a window frame in cement, a device he tried on

a number of occasions, although he was refused leave to do this on

Albert Hall Mansions in 1881 (810. ) Blashill to confirm that
went on
there was constant pressure on the public authority to give permission
in order to produce more 'picturesque irregularity'. Building height

was more lax in London than elsewhere on the Continent Paris had
-
65101t as a maximum, Vienna 77'0" but London had virtually no limit
-
j001011 was allowed, or higher if the authority permitted. On the

other hand, balconies could project as far as four feet on the

continent. The Swedish regulation for the painting of the front of a

house in any colour other than white (which was considered offensive),
the interesting Possibility 'taste'. Blashill
raised of a control on
had considered a regulation "to repress prohibit the commonplace,
or
the ugly and incongruous", but had rejected it, fearing that such

357
control might unwittingly reject "the germ of the architecture of the
future" and he did not wish to be responsible for "slaughtering, ere its

birth, the new style" (85).

Captain Shaw of the Fire Brigade had also put forward the topics he

felt needed urgent attention. These included the control on underpinning,

the ban on stone for stairs - "everyone knows an oak stair is more
fire resistant than stone", but Shaw's concern over stone projections

was not likely to appeal to the architects, and some doubt was also

expressed at the time at Shaw's apparent lack of concern over iron

hoop-bond in walls, since it was obviously prone to expand in heat and

fracture the walls (86). The fact that ironwork itself not
was still

properly controlled, except superficially by the District Surveyort

seemed strange to many even in 1889. The subject was very much alive-
there was the example of Americaq and papers were given on the subject. )
such as F. T. Readels paper on 'The application of Iron and Steel in

Building Purposes' given in November that year. Reade simply, and

rather resignedly, suggested that the recognition of the need to control

this material would come - "in time" (87)-

At the end of 1889, the L. C. Cls proposals for amending the Building
Act were publishedl hidden away in a rather unfortunate manner in a
General Powers Bill which apparently was devoted primarily to a new
bridge over Bow Creek. Regrettably, there was, once again, no
attempt to consolidate all the acts relating to building in London.
The amendments included a Tribunal of Appeal to determine controversial

cases, most of which would be about the building line; an increase in

the volume of buildings without party wall divisions from 216,000 to

450,000 cu. ft.; by-law powers for the control of plaster, the control

of backfill material in the space up to 3'0" from the perimeter of a

buildingg controls on corner sites, and the fixing of the building

height at 70'0" (88). The Tribunal Appeal, originally

of comprising
a member from the R. I. B. Al from the Institute of Surveyors and the
Superintending Architect himself (curiousq because he would be sitting
in as a judge on his own decisions) had been suggested by the Commissionýs

enquiry into the Board of Works in 1888 (89). One matter which just

358
failed to be included, and one which was causing concern at the timej

was the question of open space at the rear of working class tenements.
It failed because the Parliamentary Committee could not accept it as
it stood in the draft clause, there being no clear definition in the

Bill of 'tenement houses in the occupation of the working classes'.

It was therefore referred back to the LC.C. Building Act Committee for

clarification (90) and it reappeared in 1894.

How were these proposals and amendments received? Manufacturers

welcomed the increase in the size of business premises, even though,

as expected, the Insurance companies did not. The 70'011 building height

limit "will strike a blow at the erection of houses in flats and other
developments in building, and which probably will be fiercely opposed"
(91). Why some matters should be covered by by-laws viewed
was still
with caution, even though a precedent had been set by the 1878
Amending Act. fThe Builder' felt it was unwise to by-laws at all
use
"these sections do not so fully safeguard the public against
-
surprise or hasty enactments" (92). But fundamental the
more was

omission of a means to "render the Building Act a little more favourable

to architectural design'19'of a "scientific definition of materials in

fireproof stairs and passages" and the recognition of the need to

protect iron columns in a fire (93).

The prospect of a "monstrous" horizontal line terminating the height

of buildings at 701011 above the streetq was viewed with horror. "We

are but now escaping from the dreary and monstrous horrors of Belgravia

or Bloomsburyq flanked by long lines of level topped ugliness, each

house front no better than a rectangular box with holes in it 11wrote
Somers Clarke of the Georgian tradition (94). His solution was a
height proportional to the width of the streetý with gable fronts being

allowed, the height of the gable being set at an average ofj say,
70'0"- A District Surveyor replied to Clarke suggesting that the new

clause was but a step in the right direction, an increase by 101011

over the limit proposed in Mr Whitmore's Bill. He did concede however,

that some limit might have to be placed on the heights of roofs. It

would not, he saidl be beyond some "ingenious persons" to have over

four storeys in a roof 401011 high, a curbed at a rate
roofq sloping
of III in 1211 to finish 3'411 out of vertical at the top. Furthermore,
the number of rooms in a roof might have to be limited "public
-

359
opinion seems ready" - but unless there was some fearful fire he did

not advocate the situation in Vienna, where they were totally

excluded. On balance, he felt that the 70'0" was reasonable, it gave

six storeys and who could want more? - except in certain public
buildings for which special dispensation be obtained.
could As for
flats he considered their future to be uncertain (95). To assist its

readers, and, as it said, "if such a clause as that proposed by the

L. C. C. is made law, it will doubtless serve as a precedent for other
parts of the country"? 'The Builder'published in March 1890, a set
of diagrams which compared the building h6ight regulation in Paris,
Swedeng Hamburg, Berlin and other German towns (96). The towns

selected were only on the basis of the material gathered by architects,,

who had recently studied these places and had delivered papers on
them at the R. I. B. A. The summary is shown, simplified, on Table 14,

sheet ZZ.

In February 1890 the architect John Slater gave an important and very
timely paper to the R. I. B. A. on the subject of building legislationg

which in fact was very largely centred on the London situation. He

gave a useful summary and history of London's legislation, but noted

that the then current 1855 Building act was out of dateg a long way
behind the legisl ation in many provincial cities, concluding that the
I
time was ripe for a new act, which was expected to be a model Of its
kind (97). With the benefit of historical hindsightq he now recognised
that the Building Act of 1844 was in many ways superior to that of
1855, particularly since it had had a special Court of Appeal and rules
for the settlement of party wall disputes; and in its constructional
terms it had included street widths, drainage and more closely defined
for footings (98). The fragmentation these areas into by-laws
rules of
or into other acts was deploredq and Slater called for a single act to

unify all these areas. Provincial rules were often ahead of London.

Manchester controlled the construction of streets, unlike London; had

a wider minimum street width at 48101t as compared with Londonts 401011;

and in its proposed by-laws was considering a control over the gradient
of streets. Another idea12 and one which still eludes us todayq was
the need for a common 'subway, in every street, to carry the gas,
water and 'electric light wires'. It is interesting also to see
Portland Place now being praised for its attractive width (but see
also note 29 to chapter VIII)pa reversal Professor Hosking's views
of

360
of 1847 (see p. 100) when Portland Place was described as being "overwide,
leading to random driving". Not everyone agreed with wider streets -
Edwin T. Hall for example thought that 401011 was quite reasonable.

Lessons could also be learnt from New York. There, no public building

could front onto one street only -there had to be open side exits - and
once again, Manchester, this time in the person of its Society of
Architects, was moving ahead of London in its proposals for stairs,

corridors and exit doors (99). New York also the for
set example
fire escapes in building over a certain height in London it
- whilst
was still legally possible although acknowledged generally to be
I
, absolutely criminal', to have stone stairs carried on unprotected
iron supports, for access to flats or tenements. Slater considered
that the limitation on the cubic contents of buildings should be lifted

and each case should be determined on its own merits Henry Dawson
-
adding that this should only be allowed to happen if buildings could
be made more fireproof. One new building type, the electric lighting

companies'stations, had a special clause in their own act to relieve

them of compliance 'With this particular restriction. This building
type did however.. encounter some restrictions from the Building Act.

The 470 angle for the roof of a warehouse or trade building still applied
to them. Whilst the ground and first floors were usually occupied
by the engines, dynamos and batteries, the natural place for the small

flat for the resident engineer was on the roof, set ideally in a
\ 470
mansard or curbed roof - but now impossible to achieve within the

angle. The existing controls on foundations were considered illogical$

being made irrespective of the height of the wall or the loading on it.

E. T. Hall added that the thickness of the walls themselves should be

regulated by the actual loads on them. Slater's list of areas requiring

amendment continued with powers to control lead and zinc work, floor

boards and joists, all ironwork (again as done in New York) and the

control of the construction of the splayed shop corner. Then drainage

should Phe considered, come back within the scope of the Building Act,

and controls to prevent damp basement walls were needed - Manchester,

again on the Model By-law principle, had a 211 cavity (100), although

E. T. Hall countered this with his preference for a vertical layer of

asphalte or a vertical lining of two courses of slate.

Control of the space at the rear of dwellings, as the Amending

under

361
Act of 1882, was "practically a dead letter" maintained Slater. Only
the area was specifiedtso a building with a 50'0" frontageg 50'0"
high, requiring officially only 450 sq. ft. of open space, could
legally have a rear yard only 910t? deep. On the question of building
height, Slater agreed that the height should be related to the street
width, as in Parisl Sweden and most German cities, and there should
be a restriction on the number of rooms in the roof. (The District

Surveyons' Association also favoured a height control related to the

street widtht when a building directly abutted a street. Elsewhere

the limit would be extended by the distance the building was set back
from the street, up to a maximum of 1001011, but excluding important

architectural features such as towers, gables and dormers (101). )

Slater also considered the possibility of controls on the rights of

light and prospect, but there were difficulties here in the legal

sense, and it was difficult to see beyond the enactments on 'ancient

lights' embodied in the Prescription Act of William IV (102). To

conclude the amendments suggestedý there was the need to recognise

the problem of lifts penetrating floors, to control advertisements
on wallspand finally to accept the principle that no building at all

should be exempt from the operation of these regulations. It should

be noted that in this call for what were in effect more detailed
regulations, Slater was returning to the trend first established by
the Act of Charles II in 1667 (103), which had regulated the formation

and width of streets, the heights (i. e. the rates) in accordance with

street widths, the sizes for timber scantlings in joists9 roof

timbers and even laths for plastering had survived
- much of which
until the Building Act of 1844.

The Model By-laws were held up as an example. To Professor T. Roger

Smith they were a "carefully considered emendation of the Building
Act, containing many improvements on that Act". Lacy Ridge confirmed
that the Model By-laws were an improvement on the Building Act,

principally because they included drainage (104)9and Slater himself,

concluding "that the time had come for a good solid act" insisted
that the Model By-laws" should certainly be embodied in any new
Building Act" (105). Professor Banister Fletcher however pointed out
that in fact "the Model By-laws which had been were founded
so praised,
on the Building Act (of 1855) which had been much abusedq but which
he considered to be a good Act1t (106). It was left to Professor Kerr

362
to re-iterate, the fundamental factor involved:

"In framing any Bill, the first point to consider was whether the
House of Commons would pass it; and it was very doubtful whether the
statutory English principle - that every man might do, as he wished
with his own, provided he did not positively injure his neighbour,
would be interfered with.... a French magistrate would take it for
granted that the official was right... and an English magistrate
would think it quite as likely that the individual was being
needlessly molested, and that it was the sacredness of property,
however small, which was at stake'? (107)-

Following this important meetingt the R. I. B. A. publishedin v March 1890,

a list of points for the consideration of the L. C. C. These included

the problem of the penetration of lifts through floorsq the exemption
of small buildings, problems of definition, access to the roof for
fire escape, cornices and pilasters for shop fronts, and a new form

of direct control by the District Surveyor over the quality of

materials and construction. (108). To its discredit the R. I. B. A.

became very divided internally over these matters, and in the end
thought it unwise to send its views through to the L. C. C. 'The Builder'

proposed that many of the improvements could be made separately,

initially through subsidiary acts, and then "when the whole is good,
but dispersed through various acts, then suggest a codification of
all into one Act" (109). As it happened, this shrewd
was a remarkably
forecast of the events as they transpired up to 1894.

Even while the London County (General Powers) Bill was being read for
the third time, the L. C. C. Building Act Committee were already recom-

mending an urgent review of the Building Act. It would, however,

require extra expert assistance, since, as they said, the Architect's

department was &1ready fully occupied. Meanwhile.. in the Commonsa

Mr. Webster vainly tried to move the building regulation clauses out

of the L. C. C. Bill and into an amended Metropolis Management and

Building Act - but he was outvoted (110). The Lords Select Committee

decided to raise the maximum building height to 901011, with two

storeys in the roof, no doubt as a result of commercial pressures,

although the Surveyors' Institution was also in favour of 901011 (M).

Lord Stanley of Alderley had originally proposed 70'0" with one Storey
in the roof, and Lord Wemyss had rightly enquired why there was no
relationship set to the width of the street Northumberland Avenue
-
could already be seen tobýa disastrous The Committee considered
case.
that it was now toolate to object to high buildings in London - the

363
value of land made them necessary, lifts made them habitable and the

top storey was, as they said, no doubt healthy (112).

The London County (General Powers) Act was passed on 18 August 1890.

With it came the important Tribunal of Appeal -a topic concerned with

administration and not strictly within the terms of this work (113)

and, as a result of section 31, a new set of by-laws. Reviewing the

new Act in his Presidential address to the R. I. B. A. in November

1890, Alfred Waterhouse dwelt on the failure of the 1855 Act, its

lack of devices necessary to allow new methods of fireproof construction,

which could allow buildings to be of a greater cubic content without

party walls; its restrictions on the area of glazing, now called for

by "the ever increasing pollution of the atmosphere" as he put it', its

omission of lifts and the dangers of fire associated both with them

and with the materials, stone and iron. The new building height, at
90101t, wit4 two storeys in the roof, should, Waterhouse felt "satisfy

the most-aspiring architects". All in all, he felt it was a great

credit to the R. I. B. A., particularly the work of Arthur Cates and

Edwin T. Hall. (The have
prevarications of earlier that year seem to
been forgotten). But behind all this technical*controlpWaterhouse was

now pressing for some form of artistic or aesthetic control- the

establishment of some responsible 'Architectural Councillp who would

advise and control the artistic side of new proposals and ensure
that they were seen by the public before any final approvals were
(114). Unlike Blashill therefore, Waterhouse prepared, such
given was

was his confidence, to move further into this delicate area of

legislating for aesthetic control.

1891 saw three quite separate pieces of new legislation the by-laws
-

made under the Act we have just been discussing and the amending Act

of 1878; the London Sky Signs Act; and the Public Health (London) Act.

The draft by-laws, covering plaster and back-fill to excavations and

damp proof coursesl appeared in February 1891 (115)- Alterations

were made by the R. I. B. A., the Surveyors' Institution and the District
Surveyors' Institution, and a revised form appeared in July 1891 (116)
(See Table 13 sheet 1). Concrete could now be used for fillq every
house was to have a 611 concrete site cover, the for the
material
damp proof course was no longer specified by name, its position in

364
the wall was amended, and basement walls were to have a vertical damp

proof course. The key point here was the avoidance of any specific

material being mentioned by name, so long as it was impervious to

moisture. It was left to the District Surveyor to interpret this, and

it marked the move towards a form of functional specification and one

which could allow new materials to develop and be considered. The

mention of 'slab plastering' appears to be the first mention of

plasterboard lining. The extension of the fill of the site up to

3'01t from the external wall was a natural if somewhat extreme extension

of the concern over the use of unhealthy materials for the fill (117)-

This change to a more functional requirement did, of course, throw

more responsibility onto the poor District Surveyor (118) indeed one
-
Surveyor, T. E. Knightley, lost a case over this in 18911when he decided

that asphalte and hemp were not completely impervious over a length

of time as a damp proof course - but there was no prescription for

durability or for a minimum thickness for damp proof courses within

the by-laws (119).

The second new item of legislation concerned the phenomena of 'sky-

signs', the ever increasing number of advertisement hoardings which

were now appearing on the outside of buildings. It was hoped by

some that they might be prevented by section 14 of the 1855 Building
Act, since there appeared to be nothing else to stop the whole building

being covered by match-boarding (120). Then a gigantic letter IBI

appeared over a street - the initial of "Bovril" apparently. this

'and
apparition started a series of test cases (121 draft by-laws and special
licensesq all of which culminated finally in the introduction of a new
bill by the L. C. C. in December 1890 to control these offensive
(122). It was duly passed as the London Sky Sign Act on
creations
3 July 1891 and it was later incorporated in the London Building Act

of 1894.

The third new measure of 1891 was the Public Health (London) Act. It

will be recalled that this had first been mooted in 1885 (see p. 353),
but it had taken six years for the measure to finally reach the

statute books. The Public Health (London) Law Consolidation Bill was
designed to bring some twenty nine health statutes then current in
London into line as one new measures lines that the
rather on the

successful 1875 great Public Health Act had done for the rest of the

365
country. The details of certain parts of the Act passed in October

1891 which related directly to building design i. e. in particular,

underground rooms, are outlined in Table 13, sheet 2. The dimension

of 3'0't for part of a room to be above ground level was altered from

21011 by the Commons standing Committee (123) but more significant was
the increase in the size of the 'area' outside to a width of 4, o,, (124),

and the requirement for a provision against damp in the basement wall -
an obvious requirement, but one which in fact duplicated by-law 3,, made

at the same time under the 1878 Amending Act (see Table 13 sheet 1).

More important was section 39(l) of the Public Health (IA)ndon) Act of
1891, which gave the L. C. C. powers to make by-laws for w. c. 'spearth

closets, privies, ashpits, cesspools, receptacles for dung and all

'proper accessories thereof in connection with buildings whether con-

structed before or after the passing of this Act'. These by-laws, with
these retrospective powers, came into force on 28 June 1893. They are

summarised on Table 13, sheet 2.

Concerned principally with drainage above ground, they were to have a

significant effect on the location of the w. c. within a building. The

requirement for the w. c. to have one external wall made the planning
of deep plan buildings extremely difficult. Furthermoreg the soil

pipes had to be on the outside of the building. This requirement, one

architect reflectedg would lead to little open areas in the centre of

buildings - areas described as little more than "large fluesq which

would contain the pipes, regardless of frost. The design of an

important building ought not to hinge on the position of the soil
(125). The by-laws also further debate, as they
pipe" caused some
banned the use of the long established intercepting trap on the main

drain before it entered the sewer. Many experts considered that

tisolation', as ensured by this type of trap, was the best form Of

protection against infection (126). The the trap was, however.,

use of
to return again later (see page SIZ),, the issue
and so serious was
that a full scale Government Departmental enquiry was set up in 1912

to investigate the merits or otherwise of the intercepting trap.

The introduction of these drainage by-laws only added more confusion

to an already confused Picture, since the forty vestries already had
their own rules, some dating from 1862, and then the Commissioners of

366
Sewers had their own regulations as well. This fragmented drainage

legislation, together with the lack of more detailed regulations for

drainage below ground, was obviously altogether unsatisfactory. As

we shall see later, further attempts were to be made between 1897 and
1900 to improve this unfortunate situation. (see chapter X, page SIQ

These measures complete the relevant legislation of 1891, but already

moves were afoot to bring in a totally new measure which would con-
solidate the majority of this legislation and would form the new London
Building Act of 1894. This important development is resumed in Chapter
VIII. Meanwhile it is necessary at this point to look outside the

regulations themselves and consider the areas which had been causing
the most concern in the Courts and elsewhere between 1875 and 1891.

The Acts and By-laws in Practice in London 1875-1891

Fire

The areas of confrontation with the building regulations ranged in

scale from the materials used, through to the actual building types -
for example from asphalte on roofs to the problems posed by the
development of flats.

Asphalte was still a cause for concern. The architect Cubit Nichols

was using Claridge's Patent Asphalte on a flat roof at No 4, Half Moon

Street, Piccadilly, and the District Surveyor objected, claiming that

it would melt and set fire to objects below. Only the evidence of a
distinguished Professor of Chemistry, Professor Attfield F. R. S.,
turned the case in the defendant's favour. The'Professor explained
that the asphalte was incombustible since it contained 90% mineral

asphalte (127). Another example, this time being

of a new material
used for roofing, involved 'Durolinel, a patent wire wove with a close

mesh covered with a patent oleaginous substance which was semi-

transparent. It was used on the Royal Aquarium and Winter Gardens

at Westminster in 1888, but was objected to by the District Surveyor.

A sample was 'burnt' in Court but only the edges were affected.
Evidence in support the the
of worth of this material came from
Emden and a number learnt that
architect of engineers, and it was also

367
the material had been used not only on pavilions at the Colonial,

American and Irish Exhibitions but also on the roof of a powder

magazine! (128) A second case three years later, involving the same

material,, was dismissed when the Magistrate tested a four year old

sample and found it would not ignite at all (129). Such was the

perversity of the legal mind, however, that when the case went on appeal
to the Queen's Bench Division, Mr. Justice Mathew concluded that part

was combustible - not the wire - and that therefore the Magistrate had

been wrong and should have convicted. Mr. Justice Smith concurred, but

with regret, since the material had been then in use at Olympia,

Doulton's and Pickford's for the previous six years with no apparent
ham (130).

Constructional aspects involving fire were obviously common in relation

to chimney construction, particularly the lack of proper pargetting

of flues where they passed between the ceiling timbers (131)p

and roof

or the chimney opening not being properly tied together with an iron

bar (132). Attempts at half timber increasing in popularity

walling,
in the wake of the lead set by men such as Norman Shaw, frequently

fell foul of the regulations. Mr. Taylorl building a covered wooden

external staircase in Acton in 1881pquoted Bedford Park to the

Magistrate, but Bedford Park was outside the range of the London

regulations, and Mr. Taylor was duly convicted (133). The rules for

chimneys and hearths had not been designed to meet improved heating

stoves. The Kitchener Stove and Cooking Range, for exampleg when
inserted at No 39, Drury Lane, in 1878, produced such heat through the

party wall that "the thermometer burnt at 200OF and a match ignited in

the place without friction. ý Here, the Magistrate a

same as noted, was

clear case of an invention outstripping legislation (134). No immediate

change was made in the regulations, but it amended in

was eventually
the London Building Act of 1894.

Timber stacksl or more precisely, the timber staging erected to

support the stacksl were frequently seen as a fire risk, but the

problem here was also one of definition. Could Mr. Cobbett's staging,
consistinglof nine uprights and six cross pieces, built in Drummond
Street in 1883, be classed as a building, and thereby be made to

comply with the Building Act? The Magistrate decided it did not, yet
the protesting District Surveyor quoted Mr. Justice Byles who had said

368
that a building was "some structure or erection of considerable size,
intended to be permanent, or at least for some time, whether let into

the ground or notit (135). Three later another case involving a

years
timber stage 721011 high, with two storeys, a boarded first floor and

a zinc roof, was brought to Court by none other than Thomas Blashill
(then still a District Surveyor, but away from being
only one year

appointed Superintending Architect to the Board of Works). Blashill

heard his case dismissed on the 11commonsense view" rather than the

strict wording of the Act, by the Magistrate (136).

Moving up the scale, the most critical of the new building types was
the flat. In 1884 F. E. Eales gave a paper on the subject to the
Architectural Association and described the restriction imposed on
the design by the Building Act in London. The Amending Act of 1862
had, of course, set no limit to the height of buildings in old streets,
nor in new streets over 50'0" wide, but now, as he said, the use of
taller buildings was increasing and causing concern. The 'elevator',

which he considered not one person in twelve cared much about in

England, was becoming essential, but the control of the area at 3,600

sq. ft. before party walls were required was, he felt, not to be regretted,

although fireproof floors were preferable even though not fully

controlled by the Acts. Two other regulations affected flats - fire-

proof stairs to buildings over 125,000 cu. ft. used as dwelling houses
for separate families, as at Hyde Park Mansions, and the provision of
450 sq. ft. of open space behind buildings the longer frontage (137).
with
(The open space matter is referred to again below under Health). One

District Surveyor tried to maintain that flats in model dwellings were

'separate dwellings' and therefore would legally require party walls.
He wouldl incidentally, have been entitled to a fee for each flat if

they had been held to be separate dwellings (but see also p. 37o below).
But the Magistrate did not accept this interpretation. The block in

question was in Theydon Road, Hackney, but each block was only 1,200

sq. ft., well within the 31600 sq. ft. allowed by the Act before party

walls were needed. As the Magistrate said, if they were separate dwellings
"no person could let a portion of a house to a lodger without putting
up a party wall from basement to rooftl (138). This was a fundamental
attitude, reflecting the concept of the privately owned block, sublet
to families attitude when more local
separate -an which was to change
authority flats on a larger scale came to be built, the blocks then

369
being seen as an anonymous acretion of separate dwellings, each quite
independent from its owner by its party wall. On the fire aspect,
buildings over 3,600 sq. ft. were therefore deemed to have sets of
chambers classed as separate buildings, but if the building was less,

no matter how much less, the tenants then had no protection from fire.
Flats that were separately rated also conferred the franchise by the i8901s.

As their use grew, so it was feared by some that fires and epidemics

would be sure to occur. The District Surveyor for Hammersmith brought

a test case on this problem in 1889 lost (139). His fears were
- and
allayed by James Moore, secretary of Sir Sydney Waterlow's Industrial

Dwellings Society, who explained that there was no record of fire

spread from one tenement to anotherand there was less risk of epidemics
in flats than in ordinary houses. They had housed 30 000 people in

5,000 small flats, with. only 28 fire claims in 26 years, and no record

of disease. Yet ceilings were lath and plaster on timber joists,

although he conceded that they did use a 'fireproof' construction at

second and third floor level (140).

The problem with lifts was, of course, their penetration through floors,

giving an easy route for the spread of fire. Tavistock Residential

Chambers in Hart Street and Museum StreetýBloomsburyj were held by
the District Surveyor in 1889 not to be 'wholly divided horizontally
by fireproof floors' because there were small lifts in the sculleries
on each floor, contrary to Part 1 of Section 27, subsection 2 of the

1855 Building Act. The building was properly divided by party walls
and the Magistrate decided, reasonably, that lifts positioned at each

end of the building helped to reduce the fire risk and also, less

reasonably, that lifts were not either 'chambers or rooms' within the

meaning of the Act, and dismissed the summons (141). The surveyor in

this particular case did however later receive the benefit of a

magistrate's decision that he should be paid fees for each flat, rather
than one fee for the complete tenement block (142).

Structural Stability
-

Sheer bad building was the main source of litigation. Bad materials
for (143) was the most the lack
mortar common, but there was also of
controls on concrete work (144) and more particularly the lack of
controls on iron construction. The collapse of a building in the

370
Haymarket in 1878 was essentially due to faulty construction with cast
iron pillars and wrought iron girders (145). The District Surveyor
had very little control over this form of construction, as the
protracted debate with the builders, Kirk and Randell, proved when the
Surveyor demanded to check the calculations for the new Civil Service
Stores in the Haymarket in 1880 (11*6). Foundations were frequently
built directly on top of the natural soilt banked up by concrete
formwork, rather than below ground level - only the old Building Act

of 1844 had called for the top of the footings to be 311 below the

surface of the ground (147). In additiont there rules

were no precise
for building walls over 1001011 high. Pilkington, architect of the
Army and Navy Stores in Victoria Street, in 1882 claimed that it was,
the height of the wall head which determined the height of the
building, and there by the thickness of the wall, which in this case
brought him within the 1001011 limit of the wall thickness schedule.
The District Surveyor took the height correctly to the height of the
top of the ceiling, which in this case was in a mansard roof 118'0"

above ground level. No sanction had been obtained from the Board of
Works, but as the wall thickness in fact was in this case over the
thickness prescribed for 1001011 walls in the schedule, no further
&Gtion was taken (148). As with timber there other problems
stages were
of definition - whether or not for example, the tobogganing slide at
the Crystal Palace was a building. It was 4561011 long, had an engine
house and hoist, and was held to be a building by MrJustice Grantham
(a gentleman whomwe are to encounter in a more severe confrontation

with building legislation in the next chapter, see p. 47Z). It was held
to be not exempt, as were most of the Crystal Palace buildings by
reason of the special Crystal Palace Act (149), since it was leased ancL
not owned by the Crystal Palace Company. A similar case arose in
1887 over Thompson's Patent Gravity Switchback Railway, erected at
the Crystal Palace without the approval of the Board of Works (150)-

Health

To one District Surveyor in 1877, the speculative builder was "a

creation unknown or organism unknown to science or art, the outcome
of the growth of London and of the compulsory removal of the working
classes in large numbers to the suburbs"Pand to whom a 1211
a person
space under a floor "filled with sewage matter" dummy drains
and with

371
which only ran as far as the street, were acceptable characteristics
of their work (151). Building on 'dust-shoots' we have already
mentioned and the cases on this subject proliferated (152). Frequent

attempts were made to avoid the expense of laying the required 61, of

site concrete necessary, as one District Surveyor put it, "to prevent the
fires pumping up the unwholesome emanations into the houses" (153)-
Houses in Vespan Road, built on a former cabbage patch, received only
111of concrete cover before six houses were started on the site in
1883 (154)-

The relationship of open space to buildings was a constant source of

problems in the courts, and with this may be linked the problem of
building height in relation to street width. Lawrence and Sons,
builder of some Artizan Dwellings at Chatham Gardens, Nile Street,
Hoxton in 18859 evaded the by-laws which had been made in 1856 under
the Metropolis Local Management Act of 1855. His block, 35,011 high
in a street only 241011 wide, clearly contravened the law but his ruse
-
was to put up a pair of gates at the entrance of the street, with a
gatekeeper, thereby claiming exemption., and with this he succeeckd in
the (155). Torwood Gardens, North
convincing magistrate on the side
of Bayswater Road, built by Daw and Son in 1888-9, failed to have the

two necessary entrances 401011 wide, since the width was reduced by
'entrance lodges'. The myopic magistrate considered these to be
temporary sheds for the workmens' tools, but as the case dragged on for
nearly 18 months, these 'lodges' transformed themselves into substantial
brick piers for gates. The land remained in private hands howeverp

and as a result the defendant won his case (156). John Barker built

a building 531011 high in Ball Street Kensington, a new street only

421011 wide. Therefore the building should, as the District Surveyor

rightly protested, have been no higher than the width of the street.
But Barker pointed out that there had been an earlier building on the

site, 48'611 high. The Magistrate therefore had no alternative but

to compel Barker to reduce his building to the same height of 48,611 (157).

The poor quality of light, and therefore healtht in the lower rooms in

tall blocks of model lodging houses in narrow streets Was often

condemned. Quinn's Square was one example, there many

and were

similar ones in the East End. "It is 'The Dailderl

oddtt said
"that the very authorities who object to in a horizontal
overcrowding

372
area cannot see that overcrowding vertically comes in the end to the
same thing, and that the provision for a width of street which is
adequate for houses 30'011 high cannot be adequate for houses 6010tt
or 8010" hight'(10-

Both the complaints here - the width of street in relation to building

height. and the implied lack of light and ventilation to the lower

rooms which faced dark internal courts only, were to be duly rectified
in the forthcoming legislation of 1894. E. T, Hall was later (in 1901)
to claim some responsibility for the requirement for an air inlet at
the bottom of the internal court in a block of flats. Speaking at
the A. A. on 'Flats', he said 1114 or 15 years ago [ie. 18863 I realised
the evil and practised the remedy and we obtained its insertion in the

London Building Act of -189411 (159)-

The problem of interpreting the relevant amount of open space to the

rear of a dwelling, on the basis of the provisons of either the 1855

Building Act or the 1882 Amending Act., has been mentioned earlier. The

test case which was to decide this issue came in November 1886. Rooms

over stables were classed as habitable dwellings under the 1882

Amending Act. At No 5, Henniken Mews, Callow Streetq Elm Park Estate,

such buildings were 171011 deep, with a 32101t frontage, thereby requiring
450 sq. ft. of open space at the rear. It was argued however that these

wide frontage dwellings2 arranged in line over the stables, coach

house and harness rooms, all only 171011 deep, could all be lit from

the street and this was acceptable under section 29 of the 1855 Building

Act. It was therefore possible to build such dwellings in a long line,

without any open space at the rear, i. e. arranged back-to-back against

a similar line of dwellings, with only the narrow space of the mews

street left between them. Mr. Thorn, the builder, hastily arranged to

alter his upper rooms so as to be 'non-inhabitable', when the

Magistrate declared that section 14 of the 1882 Amending Act did in

fact supersede the old clauses covering the same topic in the 1855

Building Act. "A good reading of a good lawt' declared the vindicated
'Builder' (160).

Questions of definition arose again over the term Istorey'. In the

case of Foot v. Hodgson, the Bench decided that a storey was not neces-
sarily a space within four vertical walls. One of them could be sloping

as in a roof. The Judge at the City of London Court over-ruled this,

claiming it was the atticq a part of the not be a storey.

roof. and could

373
The Queen's Bench Division rightly rev6rsed this decision, and 'The
Builder' added the proviso that Istorey' should also mean a space
capable of being used as a room, not just as a cupboard in the roof (161).

Finally, there was the 'building line', and in particular its operation
on corner sites. It was generally agreed that the line could only

apply to the principal street, "otherwise the corner plot would be

virtually useless" (162), but it was interpreted in this

not always

way. BermondseyVestry, for example, compelled the Prince Imperial

Public House built in Rotherhithe New Road in 1879 to be set back

5'011 on the side of Rolls Road (163)- At the corner of Kensington

High Road and De Vere Gardens, a building was ordered to be demolished

in 1883 since it infringed the line in De Vere Gardens but this was
-
over-ruled by a higher judges who considered that the front was still
towards Kensington High Road, even though the front door of the building

was in Vere Street in De Vere Gardens (164). Many magistrates assumed

themselves the power of fixing the building line, even though after
1862 it was legally the prerogative of the Superintending Architect.

One magistrate in Plumstead certainly thought so in 1886, but his

decision was reversed on appeal to the Queen's Bench Division, a

decision later upheld by the Court of Appeal in the House of Lords (165)-

This chapter has seen the first part of the long struggle made by
London's building regulation to raise itself from the low position to

which it had fallen by 1875. Whilst many other towns could introduce

comprehensive and up to date building by-laws. and whilst Liverpool

could secure its own reforms in 1882, London continued to trail behind.
Its own equivalent of the Public Health Act of 1875 was not in fact

to be secured until 1891. In its efforts to gain ground and reform

its controls, suffered by having to receive a succession of short
#it
amending acts with their associated by-laws, but they were nearly all

sadly truncated versions of more ambitious which

proposals - proposals
even then would only have put London on a level with the rest of the

country, not ahead of it. The picture was therefore.. at the end of this

period covered by this chapterof a random collection of by-laws and

amending acts still set within the 1855 Building Act - all scattered
and unco-ordinated, as the dense and detailed nature of this particular

374
chapter has revealed.

Yet in spite of this almost indigestible mass of legislation, there

are a number of points which deserve to be drawn out and emphasised

here for their significance in terms of the broader context of this

work.

Firstly, in terms of actual regulatory devices we have noted the use

of the by-law in London not strictly for the f1rst time since it was
used for streets in 1857 but now for building matters. Despite some
initial reluctance they were accepted in 1879pand this must be because

of the evidence of the Model By-laws,, and the recognition that the by-
law was a more suitable device with which to control the vagaries of
building. Yet these by-laws could of course only be made as a result

of the powers granted under the Amending Acts of 1878 and 1882, not
the original Act of 1855, so their range was consequently somewhat
limited. It is interesting to reflect that whilst the 1855 Metropolitan
Building Act had formed the basis of the Model By-laws without much
difficulty, the reverse procedurel with the 1877 Model By-laws in-
fluencing the London by-laws., was much more restricted. Whilst on this
subject of by-laws it is worth noting again the novelty of not actually

specifying a particular material for a regulation, but only its

expected performance. This was the case, it will be recalled, with the

damp proof course clause. It allowed the actual choice of material

to be made by the architect or builder., and left the way open for the
introduction of new materials or techniques.

Secondly, the scientific analysis of the content and nature of the

regulations continues in this period, particularly as they come under

closer scrdtiny in more complex buildings. From the health aspect the

question of open space in relation to houses is again reassessed and

the standard adjusted, though it is still very minimal. Drainage
becomes much more detailed, and this parallels an equal obsession in
the Model By-laws, and the condition of the site is at last recognised
as important and is controlled accordingly. Consideration of fire
leads to reforms - at one end of the scale, the use of stone and the
problem of hot water pipes receives a long overdue alteration; at the

other end, there are problems raised by new building types, particularly
flats in terms of fire-proof separation, and the introduction of lifts.

375
Structurally there is much discussion on the role of iron and timber,

and the cavity wall and concrete walls at last receive recognition.

Thirdly, the architect! s voice is now heard more constantly and more

effectively. The profession is becoming more co-ordinated and more

self-confident. There are signs that the architect is concerning

himself more with a wider range of building - at the same time the

regulations are affecting more areas of building, and the gap between

the two is starting to diminish. The regulations are beginning to

pinch more sharply and the architect is beginning to protest more

vociferously. There are demands being made by architectural design

which become more persistent- an interest in a more picturesque

silhouette and a varied street architecture, as a reaction to the

severity of the Gothic and to the plainness of the Georgian tradition

which still would have characterised much of London it is marked by

- and
a return to a form of Queen Anne style. Thomas Blashill emerges as an
interesting figure in this. As Architect to the L. C. C. he tends to

bridge the gap between architecture and legislation in London, and

his refusal to accept legislation for aesthetic control, since, as he

said, it might prejudice a new style of architectures is in marked

contrast to, say, that of Waterhouse, whose security in the older but

disintegrating Gothic camp enabled him to pontificate and confidently

support the idea of aesthetic control. Discussion of this matter also

brings along the question of the emerging evidence for what we would

now call town planning. There were signs of an awareness that there

was something more beyond the actual buildings themselvesand that

there might be something to be gained by the disposition of the

controlling
buildings, not just for convenience and welfare, but for the visual

consequences as well. The heights of buildings, encouraged by commercial

pressures, needed some form of control if the quality of the street

was not to suffer. At the t; ame time the width of the street needed to

be considered, as did the building line, the amount of open space for

public use, the benefits of sunlight and a respect for the nature of the

terrain. But above all it was the appearance London as a whole

of

which was being seen afresh. The handsome and well proportioned streets

of some continental cities held an attraction, but despite well

intentioned efforts, the character of London to be set by the
was
higher buildings and the still relatively Commercial
narrow streets.
pressures seem to have again won the day.

376
Finallyt we should note the increasing attention being paid to the

examples of overseas. Nbt only was it in connection with building

height but also with regard to fireproof construction. Paris was
studied for its flat construction and its use of fireproof floors;
New York for its fire escape provisions. This is a healthy sign of a
broadening of the horizons, and it is a trend which is to continue in
the following years. One might also just mention here that the same
tended to happen in reverseand that a number of overseas cities,

particularly those of course in the colonies, would base their own

building regulations on the examples set in England.

With the following chapter, chapter VIII, we continue the development

in London up to the major piece of legislation, the London Building
Act of 1894.

377
NOTES TO CHAPTER VII

I B. Vol. 33 No. 17o6 16 Oct. 1875 p. 926.

2 Ibid.
3 B. Vol-34 No-1740 10 June 1876 P-570. Liddle referred to N. B.
Ward (who had invented the"Wardean Cases'for rearing plants in
towns and conveying them to distant places) and it was Ward who
in turn had quoted Sir James Wylie who had established that
disease an the dark side of St Petersburg barracks was three
times greater than on the light side.
4 B. Vol-34 No-1758 14 Oct 1876 P-993.
5 B. Vol-34 No-1764 25 Nov-1876 P-1134. As S. Knight described
it in his paper to the R. I. B. A. entitled "Influences of business
requirements on street architecture. "
6 B. Vol-34 No. 1765 2 Dec. 1876 P-1175 Waterhouse referred to
this building in his vote of thanks following Knight's paper
(see 5 above).
7 B. Vol-35 No. 1800 4 Aug. 1877 P-797.
8 B-Vol-34 No. 1730 1 Apr. 1876 P-317.
9 B. Vol-35 No. 1774 3 Feb. 1877 P-111. T. Chatfield Clarke;
ItModern Building in the City".
10 B. Vol-34 No. 1738 27 May 1876 P-501.
11 B. Vol-34 No-1730 1 Apr. 1876 P-319.
12 B. Vol-33 No. 1680 17 Apr. 1875 P-354-
U B. Vol-34 NO-1725 26 Feb. 1876 P-197. In its report to the
Home Secretary, Hackney District Board suggested that no building
should take place on foundations of house refuse until either two
years had passed or until the Surveyor to the Board of Works was
satisfied. This was taken up by the Works and General Purposes
Committee of the Board, who agreed to bring it to the Government's
attention when a new Act was being framed. See also
B. Vol-34 No. 1739 3 June 1876 P-543.
14 B. Vol. 34 No-1730 I Apr. 1876 P-319 Paris also forbid the
hiding of gas pipes behind plaster or between the floor spaces.
15 B. Vol-33 No. 1711 20 Nov. 1875 P. 1046.
16 B. Vol-35 No. 1783 7 Apr. 1877 P-359.
17 B. Vol-35 No. 18lo 13 Oct. 1877 P-1035-
18 B. Vol-35 No. 1812 27 Oct. 1877 P. 1084.
19 B. Vol-35 No. 1816 24 Nov. 1877 P-1183.
20 B. Vol. 36 No. 1837 20 Apr. 1878 p. 416.
21 B. Vol-35 No. iM 24 Nov. 1877 p. 1184.
22 B. Vol-36 No. 1827 9 Feb. 1878 P-135.
23 B. Vol-36 No-1839 4 May 1878 P-456.
211 B. Vol-58 No-2459 22 Mar. 1890 p. 206.
25 B. Vol-58 No. 2467 17 May 1890 P-351-2.
26 B. Vol-36 No-1833 23 May 1878 P-303.
27 13-Vol-36 No. 1827 9 Feb-1878 P-i47-
28 Ibid. p. 142.
29 B. Vol-36 NO-1837 20 Apr 1878 p. 416 and No. 1843 I June 1878 P-577.
30 Metropolis Management and Building Acts (Amendment) Act, 41 and 42
Vic. cap-32. For the theatre regulations see B. Vol-37 NO-1880
15 Feb 1879 p. 185 and No. 1892 10 May 1879 P-524-5 for full details.
31 B. Vol-36 No. 1863 19 Oct 1878 P-1099.
32 B. Vol-36 No. 1868 23 Nov-1878 p. 1231.
33 B. Vol. 36 NO-1870 7 Dec-1878 p. 1285-
34 B. Vol-36 NO-1871 14 Dec-1878 P-1311.
35 Ibid. P-1310.

378
36 B. Vol. 37 No. 1886 29 Mar 1879
P-351-2.
37 B. Vol. 37 No. 1887 5 Apr. 1879
P-380-
38 B. Vol-37 No. 1888 12 Apr. 1879
P-410-
39 B. Vol-37 NO-1915 18 Oct 1879 p. 1160.
40 B. Vol. 41 No. 2021 29 Oct 1881
P-557-
41 B. Vol. 41 No. 2017 1 Oct. 1881 P-439.
42 B. Vol. 41 No. 2026 3 Dec. 1881 P-709-
43 Ibid.
44 B. Vol. 42 No-2033 21 Jan 1882 p. 84.
45 B. Vol. 41 No. 2026 3 Dec 1881 P-710-
46 B. Vol. 41 No. 2029 24 Dec 1881 p. 803-
47 B. Vol. 42 No. 2037 18 Feb 1882 p. 209.
48 Metropoli s Managem ent, Building and Floods Prevention Acts
(Amendmen t) Bill 1 882. As for example, Mr. Hampton was to attempt
in 1884 with a str eet 161011 wide to six blocks of 'combined
dwellings ' behind Chiswick Street Camberwell, by placing a gate
at the en trance to the street and claiming that it was private
and not c overed by the Act of 1882. B. Vol. 47 No. 2162 12 July
1884 P-70-
50 B. Vol. 48 No. 2201 11 Apr 1885 P-530 and No. 2202 18 Apr 1885 p-567-
51 B. Vol. 48 No. 2199 28 Mar 1885 p. 464.
52 45 Vic. ca p-56.
53 B. Vol. 42 No. 2040 11 Mar 1882 P-279.
54 B. Vol. 42 No. 2054 17 June 1882 P-752.
Metropoli s-Managem ent and Building Act (Amendment) Act. 45 Vic-
55
cap. 14.
56 B. Vol-47 No. 2161 5 July 1884 p. 4.
57 B. Vol-47 No. 2185 20 Dec 1884 p. 841.
An Act for Prevent ing the Erection Buildings Disused Burial
58 of on
Grounds 47 and 48 Vic. cap-72. 14 Aug 1884.
59 B. Vol. 49 No. 2224 19 Sept 1885 p. 408.
60 Ibid. P- 385.
B. Vol-50 No. 2243 30 Jan 1886 216 No. 2244 6 Feb 1886 p. 229.
61 p. and
62 B. Vol-50 No. 2245 13 Feb 1886 p. 287-
See also R. H. Harper, "Concrete's Battle for London 1867-188611,
'Concrete' Vol 109 No 10, Oct 1976 p. 28.
63 B. Vol-50 No. 2245 13 Feb -1886 p. 287-
64 B. Vol-50 No. 2251 27 Mar 1886 p. 467-
65 B. Vol. 49 No. 2220 22 Aug 1885 p. 273 and William Woodward:
'London as it is and as it might be' R. I. B. A. November 1885-
R. I. B. A. Transactions Vol II, New Series, 1886 P-31-
66 B. Vol. 49 No. 2234 28 Nov 1885 P-745.
67 B. Vol-51 No. 2290 25 Dec 1886 P-907-
68 B. Vol-52 No. 2301 12 Mar 1887 P-377-
69 B-Vol-53 No. 2335 5 Nov 1887 p. 626.
70 B. Vol-54 No-2354 17 Mar 1888 p. 198.
B. Vol-54 No. 2355 24 Mar 1888 p. 214.
71
72 B. Vol-54 No-2356 31 Mar 1888 P-233-
73 B. Vol-54 No. 2359 21 Apr 1888 P-279.
74 B-Vol-54 No-2368 23 June 188 8 446 and No. 2369 30 June 1888
p.
p. 461.
75 B. Vol-55 NO-2373 28 July 188 8 p. 68.
76 B. Vol-55 No-2379 8 Sept 1888 P-179-
77 B. Vol-56 NO-2415 18 May 1889 P-376.
78 B. Vol-56 No. 2411 20 Apr 1889 P-300-
79 B. Vol-57 No. 2443 30 Nov 1889 P-387-
80 B. Vol-56 No. 2418 8 June 1889 P-432.
81 B. Vol-55 No. 2392 8 Dec 1888 p. "-411.

379
82 In the discussion following J. J. Stevenson? "Planning of streets
for convenience and architectural effect" R. I. B. A. March, 1889.
B. Vol-56 No. 2408 30 Mar 1889 p. 240.
83 T. Blashill, "The influence of the public authority on street
architecturelt Art congress at Edinburgh., October, 1889.
B. Vol-57 No. 2439 2 Nov 1889 P-312-3-
84 -
A. Saint, 'Richard Norman Shawl Yale and London, 1976, p. 233-
85 B. Vol-57 No-2439 2 Nov 1889 p. 313.
86 B. Vol-57 No. 2437 19 Oct 1889 p. 269.
87 B. Vol. 57 No. 2442 23 Nov 1889 P-365.
88 B. Vol-57 No. 2445 14 Dec 1889 p. 421-2.
89 B. Vol-55 No-2389 17 Nov 1888 P-353.
90 B. Vol-57 No. 2445 14 Dec 1889 p. 427.
91 B. Vol-57 No. 2446 21 Dec 1889 p. 433.
92 Ibid. P. 434.
93 Ibid-
94 B. Vol-57 No-2447 28 Dec 1889 p. 463.
95 B-Vol-58 No. 21*48 4JJan 1890 p. 12-13o
96 B. Vol-58 No. 2454 15 Feb 1890 p. 112 and No. 2459 22 Mar 1890 p. 211.
97 R. I. B. A. Transactions, Vol VI, New Series, 1890 p. 116.
98 Ibid. p. 119.
99 Ibid. p. 123.
100 Ibid. p. 128.
i0l B. Vol-58 No. 2461 5 Apr 1890 p. 245o
102 2 and 3 Will-IV cap-71.
103 19 Chas. II cap-3 (1667).
104 R. I. B. A. Transactions, Vol. VIj New Series, 1890, P-139-
105 ibid. p. 14o.
106 Ibid. P-M.
107 Ibid- P-138.
108 B. Vol-58 No. 2456 1 Mar 1890 p. 149.
log B. Vol-58 No. 2458 15 Mar 1890 p. 188.
110 B. Vol-59 Nqo2475 12 July 1890 P-31.
Ill B. Vol-59 No. 2494 22 Nov 1890 p. 403-
112 B. Vol-59 No. 248o 16 Aug 189o p. 127,
113 See C. C. Knowles and P. H. Pitt, 'The History of Building Regulation
in London 1189-19721 London, 1973 p. 89 for further discussion
of the Tribunal of Appeal.
114 R. I. B. A. Transactions, Vol VIII New Series, 1891j P-11-15-
Presidential Address of 3 Nov 1890. also B. Vol-59 No. 2492
8 Nov 1890 P-36o.
115 B. Vol. 60 No 2505 7 Feb 1891 Po107
116 B. Vol. 61 No. 2527 11 July 1891 po32.
117 Ibid-
118 Ibid.
jjq B. Vol. 60 No. 2521 30 May 1891 P-436.
120 B. Vol-59 No. 2487 4 Oct 189o p. 272.
121 B. Vol-59 No. 2488 11 Oct 1890 p. 2821 291,296.
122 B. Vol-59 No. 2489 18 Oct 1890 Po3lls 313 and No. 2495 29 Nov
189o p. 430 and NO-2497 13 Dec 1890 p. 463-
123 B. Vol. 6o No. 2519 16 May 1891 P-391-2o
124 B. Vol. 60 No. 2520 23 May 1891 p. 406.
125 B. Vol. 64 No. 2611 18 Feb 1893 P-134-5-
126 B. Vol. 69 No. 2757 7 Dec 1895 p. 424.
127 B. Vol. 45 No. 2112 28 July 1883 P-130-
128 B-Vol-55 No. 2387 3 Nov 1888 P-326.
129 D. Vol. 60 No. 2523 12 June 1891 P-478.
130 B. Vol. 61 No. 2546 21 No- 1891 P-394.

380
131 B. Vol-33 No. 1699 28 Aug 1875 P-783.
B. Vol-35 NO-1790 26 May 1877 P-542.
B-Vol-36 No. 1834 30 Mar 1878 P-333-
B. Vol-37 No. 1900 5 July 1879 P-757, No. 1902 19 July 1879
p. 815; and No. 1904 2 Aug 1879 p. 870-
132 B. Vol. 40 No. 1991 2 Apr 1881 p. 420.
133 B. Vol. 41 No. 2029 24 Dec 1881 p. 804.
134 B-Vol-36 No. 1858- 14 Sept 1878 P-972.
135 B. Vol. 44 No. 2104 2 June 7591 No. 2105 9 June 1888 P-772,
No. 2106 16 June 1888 p. 830-
136 B. Vol-50 No. 2243 30 Jan 1886 p. 217-
137 B. Vol. 46 No. 2144 8 Mar 1884 P-351
138 B. Vol-50 No. 2259 22 May 1886 P-761.
139 B-Vol-57 No. 2423 13 July 1869 P-31-
140 B. Vol-57 No. 2425 27 July 1889 p. 67-
141 B. Vol-56 No. 2408 20 Mar 1889 p. 247.
142 B. Vol-57 No. 2436, 12 Oct 1889 p. 263.
143 B. Vol-33 No. 1680 17 Apr 1875' P-3549 No. 1697 14 Aug 1875 p-737.
13-Vol-36 No. 1870 7 Dec 187P p. 1287, Vol-37 No. 1879 8 Feb 1879
p. 162.
144 B. Vol-35 NO-1796 7 July 1877 p. 695.
145 B. Vol-36 No. 1830 2 Mar 1878 p. 227.
617 May 1880 648.
146 B. Vol-38 NO-1945 17 May 1880 p. and No. 1946 22 p.
147 B. Vol-39 No. 196§ 9 Oct 1880 P. 456.
148 B. Vol. 42 No-2036 11 Feb 1882 P-178.
149 44 Vic. cap-36 sec . 21.
B. Vol-53 No. 2314 il June 1887 884, No. 231*1 17 Dec 1887 p. 861
150 p.
and BoVolo55 14o.2 378 1 Sept 1888 p. 182.
151 B. Vol-35 N0.1771 1j Jan 1877 -p. 42.
152 B. Vol-34 NO-1739 3 June 1876 P-543 and Vol-37 No. 1887 5 Apr
1879 P-380-
153 B. Vol-38 No. 1934 28 Feb 1880 p. 265-
154 B. Vol. 44 No. 2084 13 Jan 1883 'p. 62.
155 BoVol. 49 No. 2226 3 Oct 1885 P-478 and No. 223o 31 Oct 1885
p. 625.
156 B,*Volo55 No. 2392 8 Dec 1888 p. 420; V01.56 No. 2417 1 June
1889 P-413 and B. Vol-58 No. 2467 f7 May 1890 P-361.
157 B. Vol. 56 ilo. 2400 2 Feb'1889 P-93.
158 B. Vol-55 NO-2382 29 Sept 1888 p. 225.
159 B. Vol. 80 NO-3025 26 Jan 1901 P. 81.
160 BoVýol-51 No. 2286 27 Nov. 1886 P-789.
161 B. Vol. 59 No. 2475 12 July 1890 p. 24.
162 B. Vol. 41 No. 2027 10 Dec 1881 P-724.
163 B. Vol. 41 No. 2028 17 Dec 1881 P-774.
164 B. Vol. 44 No. 2094 24 Mar 1883 P-374-
165 B. Vol-50 No. 2248 6 Mar 1886 P-363.

381
METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT ACT 1878 TABLE 11
(An Act to amend the Metropolis Management Act 1855, the Sheet I
Metropolitan Building Act 1855 and the Acts amending the
same respectively)
41 and 42 Vic. cap-32
DATE 22 July 1878
Reference in text : page 344.
.

I
CLAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS
design and construction ANTE POST
Summary of contents

STREETS
4 Term 'roadway' now means for all T6. Sl - Ti4. cl2
&6 traffic, whether for carriages or and ci3
foot traffic. Prescribed distances Metropolis and
for all new buildings in old streets Local T12. c6
to be 201011 from centre of road when Management c9 inc,
a carriageway, and 101011 when for Act
foot traffic. These distances may Amendment
be less at discretion of Board. Act - 1862

STRUCTURE
(Powers given to Metropolitan Board new T14. cil
of works to require theatre and music and
hall proprietors to remedy structural Met. Board
defects). of Works
('Power to Board to (Various
12 make regulations
for theatre and music halls for Powers)
protection from fire)- Act 1882
14 Foundations : means 'the space T8. ci6
immediately beneath footings of wall'
Site: means 'whole space between
level of bottom of foundations and
level of the base of the walls.
16 Powers to make by-laws for
sites and foundations see
,, below
wall construction,
District Surveyor's fees and duties
in connection with above.

MISCELLANEOUS
15 This act to be construed together with
Metropolitan Building Act 1855-
20 This act not to apply to City of
London.

MADE IN 1879 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16 OF THE ABOVE

-LAWS

STRUCTUPE
Foundations and site of buildings
No building on sites of refuse, T8. cq
vegetable matter, etc,
Site of building to have 6t' concrete
layer, unless site is gravel, sand T8. cIO T13. c2
or virgin soil*. Foundations to be otherwise
of concrete 911 thick and projecting all still -
valid in 1914,

382
TABLE 11
Sheet 2

i
411 min. from sides of footings, still valid
unless'site has natural bed of in 1914
gravel'.
Concrete: 1 lime to 6 aggregate (brick,
gravel) or I cement to 8 aggregate. new
Above not applied to stable or shed.
2 Description & Quality of substance
of walls
Walls good, hard, sound, well
external: burnt bricks with good
mortar or cement. (except T8. cli T14. cl
concrete buildings) 0
Similar bricks to be used below ground new still val
for party and cross walls and above in 1914
roof and for chimney stacks. Cutters
or malms may be used in arches over
recesses and openings on faces of
external walls.
Stone to be free from cracks, etc and
to be laid in its natural bed. new still valid
Mortar: 1 of lime to 3 of sand or in 1914
grit.
Cement: Portland or equal quality,
1 of. cement to 4 of clean
sand or grit.
Burnt ballast or broken brick may be
used instead of ýand or grit, if
properly mixed with lime in a mortar
mill.
Every wall to have a Damp Course, T8. c17 T13-c3
whole thickness of walll of asphalte T9-c17
or similar, in external wall at
height of 1211 above ground level, in
party or internal wall at 611 min
below level of lowest floor.
Top of party wall and parapet wall T8. c2l,7 still valid
to be finished with one course of in 1914
hard bricks on edge or coping or
other waterproof and fire resisting
material.

See also Table 12, sheet 21 upper half, for further by-laws made in
1886 under this act.

383
METROPOLITAN MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT TABLE 12
AcT -1882 Sheet 1
(An Act to confer further powers upon the Metropolitan
Board of Works with respect to streets and buildings
in the Metropolis)
DATE 19 June 1882 45 Vic. cap. 14
Reference in text : page 349.

CLAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

NO. design and construction ANTE POST
Summary of contents

STREETS
6 Prevents obstructions, in streets. T11. c4 T14-c7
and by- c13 inc.
7 Board to control new streets which
laws of
do not connect between two streets 1 May
i. e. to prevent cul-de-sac form-
1857
ation.
see
9 Board may annex and enforce T6. sl
conditions as to the space to be left
open when a building is erected
beyond the general or regular line
of building*

STRUCTURE
12 Board may impose conditions requiring see also T14. Part
the removal of iron buildings T1O. c2A VII
or other
of a temporary character within a
certain period.

13 Temporary movable
or wooden structures
or erections not to be erected without
a licence from the Board.

16 Exclusion of heating pipes with hot

water or steam at low pressure* T6. c21 T14. c66

SPACE ABOUT BUILDINGS AND VENTILATION

14 Open spaces to rear of dwellings on T8-c54 T14. c4l
new sites:
Frontage up to 15'0": open space
150 sq. ft. min.
Frontage over 15'0": open space
ZOO sq. ft-min.
Frontage over 201011: open space
300 sq. ft, min.
Frontage over 30'0": open space
450 sq. ft-min,
Open space in all cases to be free
from any erection on it above the level
of the ceiling of the ground floor
storey and to extend the entire width
between party walls.

384
BY-LAWS MADE IN 1886 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16 TABLE 12
OF THE METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND 13UILDING ACTS AMENDMENT Sheet 2
Me Table 11, sheet
ACT 1878 1)

STRUCTURE
2a Concrete walls : Portland cement and new see also
clean ballast, gravel, broken brick, T26 for
furnace clinker and clean sand. L. C. C.
1 part cement :2 parts sand 3 parts Reinforced
of coarse material, broken up to pass concrete
through a 211 ring. Regulations
Clean water - careful mixing.
Walls to be carried up regularly, in still valid
parallel frames of equal height. in 1914
Frame to be left rough and uneven to
form a key for next frame.
Thickness of walls as for brickwork (see also
as per Section 12 of Metropolitan T19. s1)
Building Act 1855. Portions of
concrete above roofs to be rendered
externally with Portland cement.

See also Table 131 sheet 11 lower half, for further by-laws made in
1891 under the Act of 1878

385
BY-LAWS MADE BY THE L. C. C. UNDER SECTION 31 OF THE TABLE 13
LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) ACT 1890.53 and Sheet 1
54 Vic. cap. 218
DATE : 13 October 1891

I LINKS
LAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building
design ANTE POST
and construction

STRUCTURE
i PIASTER Laths free from sap. Iron new
-
and wire netting may also be used.
COARSE STUFF -1 part lime to 3 parts
sand, with water and hair.
(Portland cement, Keen's cement,
Parian cement, Martin's cement,
Selenitic cement, or other approved
plaster of Paris may be used).
Lime - freshly burnt.
Sand - clean, sharp, free from loam
or earthy matter. still valid
Hair - good, sound. Ilb hair to in 1914
every 3 cu ft of coarse stuff.
Fibrous material may be used
instead of hair, and ground
brick or furnace slag instead
of sand, to D. S. approval.
SETTING COAT - lime or cement, with
clean sand or cement only.
Portland cement = 90 lbs per imperial
bushel. Fibrous slab or other slab
plastering of sufficient thickness,
and securely fixed, may be used on
ceilings, partitions and walls, to D. S.
approval.
2 EXCAVATIONup to 3'0" outside external new still valid
to be filled in 1914
walls of building - only
with natural soil, brick or dry
rubbish, approved by D. S. (no faecall
animal or vegetable matter) All to
be properly rammed.

UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 16 OF THE

BY-LAWS MADE IN 1891
ACT 1878 (see, Table
METROPOLIS MANAGEMENTAND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT
11, sheet 1 and Table 12, sheet 2)

STRUCTURE
2 (The earlier concession for gravel, T11. cl
sand or virgin soil for sites - now
omitted)

3 DAMP PROOF COURSE now to be of T11. c2 still valid

impervious to moisture, in 1914
material and
approved by D. S. Position at level
not less than 611 below level of lowest
floor. Every external wall of habit-
able room, against earth, to be prot-
ected by impervious materials, to
S. approval.
-D.

386
(LONDON) ACT TABIE 13
REGULATIONS MADE UNDER THE PUBLIC HEALTH
54 and 55 Vic. cap. 76 Sheet 2
Sections 39(l) and 96

CLAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

No. design and construction ANTE POST

DRAINAGE
39W (Applies to both new and existing All still
buildings). Drainage by-laws made valid in
by the L. C. C. June 1893 : 1914 but see
also: -
1) w. c., one side at least to be on T21. c67
T8. c67
external wall, not to open off any
habitable room or room used for
manufacture.
2) w. c. etc to have window area 2 T8. c68 T21. c68
sq. ft. open to external air, plus
air brick or air shaft for
constant ventilation.
3) water supply to cistern to be T8. c6q T18. c6g
separate from supply to drinking.
10 soil building-sizes T8. c66 T21. c66
pipe-outside
given - to be 3'0" min. above and
2010" T23-c3
window top and not within
of window. Not to connect to bath
or rainwater pipe - no trap
in soil pipe or between soil pipe
and drain .
6 -7) earth T1O. c71 T21. c7l,
closets.
8) privy 2010" min. from house or T8-c73 T21. C75
-
public building.
9) privy - 1001011 min. from well or
spring.
10- privy construction - cleansing.
13 )
W to hold one week's refuse. T8. c8O T17-c3l
ashpit
20- cesspool - 1001011 min. from house
21) or well, etc.
22- T8. c86 T17-c39
cesspool construction.
23
211-
receptacles for dung.
25)
HABITABLE UNDERGROUNDROOMS
96 7'O't min. height, 3'0" of which to be T6. c1O3 still valid
in 1914
above street level at least.
Provision for prevention of damp in
walls.
Provision 0ý open area, 611 below room
floor level, to be 41011 min. wide,
running across entire width of house
frontage. Steps down to area allowed,
and access over area to front door,
but not to obstruct front window
of underground room.

387
TABLE 13
Sheet 3

96 cont... T6. c1O3 still valid

in 1914
Provision of proper drainage, w. c.
ashpit, ventilation, fireplace$ and
window(s) *
Window area to be 1/10th of floor
area of underground room. Top half
of window to be openable.

388
CHAPTER VIII

THE LONDON BUILDING ACT i8gl+

The Prelude : 18gi - 1894

The progress towards. the long expected revision of London's building

legislation is now resumed from the point at which it was left in
1891 (see chapter VII, page 367). The pace of change now begins to

quicken and a considerable amount of activity is to occupy the next

three years.

In May 1891 the L. C. C. agreed that it would have no objection to the

suggestion made by the Statute Law Committee that parts of the

Metropolitan Management and Building Acts should be repealed (1). A

draft of the revisions came through a year later, prepared by the

Local Government Board Office, and went to the Building Act Committee

of the L. C. C. for its consideration (2). The Local Government Board

therefore can be seen to be the common source for the Model By-laws

and these proposals for London. The L. C. C., even though it had been
toying with its own amending measures since the time of the abortive
Bill prepared by the former Board of Works in 1874, now switched its

attention to the Government's proposals, and by December 1891 was in

a position to announce that it generally approved them (3)-

We can take Thomas Blashill's views of changing in the London

what needed
legislationsfrom his conveniently timed tal'k given to the Seventh

International Congress Hygiene Demography in August 1891 W-

of and
As the Supýrintending Architect to the L. C. C. he was obviously in an

ideal position to identify the relevant architectural factors. First,

there was no provision in the London legislation, as there was in the

Model By-laws,, fOr ventilation under wooden floors in the lowest storey.
Manchester's by-laws of 1890, upheld by Blashill as being "the best

and most modern form" did so, but Blashill himself preferred a solid

timber floor laid directly on fillets to a concrete sub-floor, the

timbers being 'Burnettised' or I-Ryanised' against damp. E. T. Hall also

supported this view, as he considered the exclusion of "ground air*$

being Itcharged with carbonic acid gas" to be deadly to persons

369
inhabiting rooms. More sensibly, Hall recommended a protective layer

of asphalte to the lowest floor, bt4t so unsavoury were those voids

below the floor spaces that Hall also felt that a solid floor to the

upstairs rooms was equally important. Blashill's concern at the

gravel, sand or natural virgin soil on the site, without the 6t? concrete

cover, and also to the damp proof course levels,, was rather strange,

since he must have known that both these matters were to be corrected

under the imminent new by-laws, which were to iiýppear officially later

that year (Table 13, sheet 1). Nevertheless, Manchester was again to

the fore. Lead was specified in its by-laws, at 4 lbs per inch,

asphalte was given a specified minimum thickness of one inch, this

being required (though slates could be the level of

an alternative) at
the surface of the ground, a rather precarious position as later

experience showed. Basement walls with a 211 cavity were the order in

Manchester, but again, on the precedent of the Model By-laws, there

was no vertical damp proof course. Blashill thought this unwise, and

recommended "an outer covering or rendering of the wall with asphalte

carried down from the damp proof course which is above ground to
...
a damp proof course which is below the floorlt. (compare this with the

situation in the Model By-laws in chapter VI p. 291).

Blashill then referred to the L. C. C. 's own regulations for the design

of artizan dwiallings. These are not strictly part of the main

evolution of the building regulations. since they are particular and

local, not directly controlled by statute by-law, and relating only

or
to the L. C. C. housing schemes built under the Part I of the
powers of

Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890 for which had to be

-schemes

approved by the Secretary of State. They on Table 151

are summarized

sheet 11 as they have an indirect bearing on the emergent pattern of

London's legislation at this point. The L. C. C. room heightq at 91011

21011 higher than the current Building Act although, in the

was minimum,

face of rising costs, the height was in 1893 to 816% Space

reduced

between buildings was set at 112 times the height of the block, but other

topicst such as room sizes, stair position and lavatory accommodation,

do not enter the mainstream of building regulation generally at this

point. Finally, Blashill noted that the L. C. C. wcLs. currently con-

sidering new drainage regulations. Drainage by-laws were in fact

virtually non-existent, and those issuing from the Vestries were,

according to Dicksee, quite illegal (5), but the L. C. C. had been

390
trying to overcome this deficiency since 1889 (6). New drainage

by-laws did eventually appear in February 18939 under the powers of

the Public Health (London) Act 1891, and came into force on 28 June
1893. These have been mentioned already in Chapter VIII page-366.

Early in 1892, the R. I. B. A. published its own draft Bill for a new
Building Act, a product which was the result of considerable detailed

work, and which was based on the suggestions made by its Practice and
Standing Committee in 1890-1 and approved by the Council in November

1891 M- Its most important proposal was that all details of con-

struction, which were subject to variations as new techniques and

materials were developed, should be omitted from the main body of the

Act and placed in schedules to the by-laws. These could then be

altered from time to time without the necessity of fresh legislation.

Secondly, the R. I. B. A. bravely attempted a definition

of a 'building', but with no more success than the attempts of others,

since it was discovered that in their Bill was a contradiction in this

very definition. With reference to a building in one place it stated

"whether such erection is wholly enclosed or not" whilst a little later

it was stated that "every building shall be enclosed with walls con-

of brick, stone, etc". In fact the majority of the R. I. B. A. 's

structed
amendments were to do with definitions, but the following technical

also received their attention% the need for party walls to

matters
4MA
project where eaves; were not of fire resisting material*Vthe specifica-
tion that floors of corridors, halls and stairs in buildings, over

3,600 sq. ft. or over 50,000 cu. ft-were to be of fire resisting material,

although they were prepared to allow a wooden floor on a fire resistant

provided that there was no air space in between. On

substructure,
the provision of escape from flats and warehousqs, the R. I. B. A. suggested

that when a corridor was further than 601011 away from a stairl
the stairs should go up to the roof, part of which would be flat and

protected by a handrail and which would give access to another stair-

case that lead back down again to the street (8).

Further points emerged in E. T. Hall's paper to the R. I. B. A. on 'London

Building Legislation', given on 8 February 1892 (9). Amongst the

proposals from the Practice Standing Committee was the idea of a solid

'backbone' of brick-work in the centre of a party wall, which could not

be reduced by either owner, and the control on the extent of recesses

391
in a party wall being determined by their culminative width, and not
by their total area. In external walls they proposed that recesses
and openings be modified to be not more than half the wall area in
any storey, nor to apply at all to the area between the base and a
line 301011 above the footpath, thereby clearing the way legally at
last for more shop fenestration on the ground storey. The height
of habitable rooms now went up to 810" from 71011 and a minimum area
for dormers and windows was fixed; cornices of shops, could overhang
the public way and bay windows could project over the owner's own land,
though not within 210" of the party wall, or beyond a line drawn at
30'0t' from the point in front of the building where it touched the
centre line of the division between the properties. Turrets and oriel
windows, as the L. C. C. now acknowledged, could project 1211 over the
public way.

These were all longstanding areas which needed amendment. More

significant were four new suggestions. First, that underground rooms
should now be transferred back into the Building Act from the Public
Health Act, an eminently sensible reversal to the of the
practice
1840's, but one which was not adopted. Secondly, a new section to
deal with the alteration in purposes or character a building and
of
for the restoration of buildings of architectural, archaeological or
historic interest This was an important this
. clause, acknowledging
legacy and the need to control it legally, and as such was a matter
beyond the basic concern for health and safety had until now
which
formed the substance of the building regulations. Thirdlyl there was
more scientific awareness of building construction in the proposal
to vary the thickness of concrete foundations in accordance with the
height and class of building. Finally, regulationsfor the construc-
tion of lifts. It was proposed that in flats they
and offices
should be encased in brick walls with iron doors; lifts were
where
outside the external wall the shaft should be enclosed around the gear
machinery; and where lifts were inside warehouses and not enclosed in

shafts but passed through fire resisting floors, the in the

openings
floor were to have horizontal fire resi st ing doors. Edmund Woodthorpe
, ,
emphasised the need to regulate lift construction, since
particularly
CL
there was the example of/recent disastrous fire'in New York still fresh
in their minds. There was also, he added, the had yet to
problem which
be acknowledged, of providing a separate staircase up to a caretaker's
flat over a warehouse.
The height of buildings was now proposed to be set at the limit of
75'0", with two storeys in the roof, totalling not more than 20101,
together. The L. C. Cls suggestions for the open space controls were
still not satisfactory in Hall's opinion. They would apply to all
buildings, not just domestic, and would mean that the sýace between
the opposite backs of two buildings would be practically double the

width required between the opposite fronts of buildings (W. There

would then be confusion in deciding which was the front and which was
the back of a building.

The discussion following Hall's paper highlighted a number of other'

topics. Arthur Baker and H. H. Statham were both concerned that there

was so little on fireproof construction - Baker had seen a building

then being built in Kensington in brick and stone "but standing
entirely upon iron legs" and he hoped that a new Act would make such
structure impossible. On the other hand, Arthur Cawston could sep no
reason why the fronts of warehouses should not be built entirely of
iron and glass, nor could he see why the Act should not now sanction
the rebuilding of half timbered buildings, provided that they were not
too near other buildings. Bernard Dicksee suggested an easier rule
for projections : if they were not more than 101011 from other property
or not projecting more than 41011, and Ralph Nevill approved the new
rules for thicker flues for 'Kitcheners' (see p. 360). John Slater was

naturally pleased to see so many of the suggestions he had made two

years ago (see P. 340) now incorporated, but J. D. Mathews, with the

caution of old age, was still afraid that by-laws would embody various
whims or fancies which would not at all be in the interests of the
(11). The one matter the take
public which R. I. B. A. did manage to
further was the problem of fire resist'ant construction. In May 1892,
the Annual Report noted that recommendations had been made to the
Local Government Board to make fire resisting materials compulsory in

the construction of large and important buildings in London (12). It

was left to the Surveyors' Institution to recommend that the building

line controls and all house drainage should come within the scope of
the Building Act (13).

Meanwhile the L. C. C. in April 1892, was giving more attention to the

difficult question of limiting the height of dwellings according to
the open space about them, the concept that had been initially high-

393
lighted by the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes
in 1884-5-- The 450 angle at the rearg based, it was admitted, on
the Liverpool precedent, did not go far enough since the L. C. C. now

accepted that it did not also cover the space at the front of the
building. Furthermore -the law at this time allowed a building built

on 'old foundations' to be of any height, i. e. one built on the site of

a previous building. The L. C. C. Public Health and Housing Committee

wanted to change this, but it was ruled out of order on a trivial

technical matter which determined that it was not within their terms

of reference (14). In spite of thisq on 26 July 1892 the L. C. C

instructed the Parliamentary Committee to recommend to the Government
the introduction of the new Bill (15).

The subject of London's building regulation again appeared at the

R. I. B. A. in December 18929 when William C, Street gave a paper on "Some
problems of Town and City Development1t, a paper primarily devotedg as
its title implied, to planning problems, but overlapping into the
regulation field. The definition between the two areas was not yet
clear (16). Street preferred a building height lower than 75,011 and
also recommended the Model By-law requirement of a 25'0" minimum width
of open space for all houses over 351011 high and, not for the first
time, the idea of street 'subways' for all services. William Woodward
called for the need to repeal the clauses on open space around
buildings altogether since it could not be enforced on sites previously
occupied by buildings
- which of courýse meant the majority of London.
Here was the L. C. C. "compelled by statute to clear away slum property
at immense cost to the ratepayers buý at the same time is without
adequate means to prevent the creation of slums under its very eyes"
(17)- (In fact new clauses designed to overcome this appeared in
April 1893 - all new parts of buildings, over and beyond the former
or existing buildings if it was to be extended, were to come under the
Building Act; and the height was not to be greater than the width to
the opposite side of the street (18). ) Woodwardhad no objection to
high buildings if
the street was also wide - the Foreign Office in
Whitehall was 9010t' high and he found it none too high for the width
of the street. Lewis Angell was more concerned at Street's ltdreams
of fair - of Paris, Berlin and Vienna. But, as Angell pointed
cities"
out, continental methods did not fit British notions. Had not the
Bishop of Peterborough wisely said "England would rather be free than

394
beautiful". After thirty years as a municipal architect, Angell was

satisfied that nothing short of a fire on an American scale or an

earthquake on a Japanese scale would bring about any great new

departure in English street improvements (19).

A major change of course occurredin June 1893. After spending nearly

four years on a new Bill, the effortsof the L. C. C. were thwarted by

the changes in Government resulting from the return of Gladstone and

the Liberals to power. In view of the delays which this change made

to the progress of the Government's business, which included their

amending Bill, the L. C. C. decided to draft its own private bill -

the London Streets and Buildings Bill. Into it they now brought the

clauses on streets and building lines from the Metropolis Management

Act, and also the controls embodied in the Sky Signs Act. New proposals

also came from the Building Act Committee for the control of open space

at the front and rear of buildings (20). The Committee had looked at the

Model By-laws, as well as those in operation in Liverpool, Birmingham,

Bristol, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh which covered this matter.

They finally prepared a new clause to bring all new parts of building-5,

over and beyond the former or existing buildings, within the Act! s,

controls, with an amendment by Beachcroft to prohibit all houses, on

all sites-whether built before or after 1878, to be not less than

201011 from the the (this section 6

centre of road was an extension of

of the 1878 Amending Act) (21). By November 1893 the L. C. C. were

cautiously finding their way through the precise wording of the

amendments covering this matter, not wanting, as they said, to con-

travene the spirit of the Bill and yet at the same time not wanting

to cause hardship to individual owners. They included in their

artizan dwellings which did not front onto any street but
controls
a courtyard, a loophole which needed blocking, since up to this
only
point, the Council had had virtually no control over these blocks of

dwellings. Buildings on 'old' foundations could now be made to set

back to give sufficient open spaces and another new control was to set
the size of internal courts, what were in effect ventilation shafts in

the centre of blocks, to provide a modicum of light and air. Street

to (22),
controls were extended control gas lamp brackets over streets
,
and another innovation was the lighting common access staircases in
of

395
tenement blocks at night. At the same time, December 1893, when the

new Bill was sent to Parliament (23) there was Alderman Beachcroft

then addressing the Sanitary Inspectors' Association and recommending

the extension of the Model By-laws to London (24). There was still no

adequate proposal to amend and consolidate any drainage regulations

for London.

The new Bill was generally favourably received. 'The Builder' thought

it was good, particularly welcoming the requirement for means of

escape from buildings over 601011 high the allowance of buildings over
1P
216,000 cu. ft. by the Council,, and the controls for habitable rooms

over stables, although it thought that 3" of concrete between the

joists in this latter requirement was not adequate and it would have

preferred a solid concrete infilling. But there were still some

shortcomings. What harm was there, asked 'The Builder' in a street

being closed at one end by gates, a semi-private street, that was often

preferred by wealthy residents? Why limit a street at 60'0" -

width

was not Paris still a relevant example? And how did this relate to

building height, since it was universally agreed, said 'The Builder',

that the height should not be greater than the width, yet the maximum

height was given as 75'0"? It was unclear how the 450 angle clause

should be interpreted; it was difficult to understand the claus(ý

regarding courts or shafts within buildings, and, with houses on low

lying ground, no details were given of how the site under the lowest

floor was to be treated (25).

At the Surveyors' Institution, Henry Blackburn analysed the new Bill

on 5 February 1894 (26). He approved particularly of the controls on

dwellings under railway archesq and of the controls, for floor joists -
but why were the controls on the sizes and columns used for
of girders
carrying whole buildings st, ill omitted? It was a pity that there were

no controls over stairs and gangways (to avoid, as he saidq the sort

of catastrophe which had occurred at Hampstead on Bank Holiday in 1892).

Why was the road width limited to 6010"? The other criticisms reflected
the Surveyor and his attitude to finance. The setting back of a
buildingg whilst providing a forecourt, did not allow for any compen-

sation for any depreciation which might occur. The small suburban
house property market would be affected by the alteration to the wall
thickness schedule, for now 911 walls were to be no higher than 251011 or

396
longer than 30'0" if only two storeys high. 91t was strong enough for
three storeys, maintained Blackburn; the main problem was really the

penetration of damp (see also the Friern Road case p-415) (27). Open

space at the ground floor rule now prevented shops from extending at
the rear -a restriction on trade, protested Blackburn. The room
height set at 81611 was too high for over half the area in the roof-
810t? or 716" would have been quite adequate and much cheaper, and the

size of window openings could have been reduced - all these new
regulations would in Blackburn's view, increase the cost of houses

by some W to 12%.

At the R. I. B. A. it was Arthur Cates who reviewed the Bill on 12 March

1894, with a discussion following a week later (28). Generally the

R. I. B. A. was in favour of the Bill after all it was now largely

-
based on their suggestions. There were however still a number of

areas which the members felt to be unsatisfactory. Streets still lacked

any broader planning controls, for their direction and for an open

space to be left for public recreation. One good feature was the re-

quirement for a space 51011 wide between the footpath and the external

wall of a house, a requirement which Cates thought should be applied

generally throughout the country. Statham still pressed the example

of Parisian streetsl the only comparable one to his mind was Portland

Place (29). Cates saw no need for the the rear of a building
space at
to be altered to the floor being in (as
so as prevent ground covered
for shops) and J., T. Stevenson thought it better to keep the space at

the rear narrower "to force the wind down and clear out the stagnant

air belowlt (30). Cates attacked the 450 being "destructive,

angle as

and without beneficial results" but he now mentioned, and it

oppresive

was the first mention of this, that the angle of 630 201 had been

suggested, starting at a level 121011 above the street level. Cates'

view was shared by the Institute of Builders and the Central Association

of Master Builders of London. It was "simply nonsense to pretend that

light or air is regulated or controlled by an angle of 45 0 or any
either
other angle ... 11 (31). This 'shaving clause' as J. T. Perry dubbed it,

would, he claimed, at 45 01 harshly affect hotels and large retail

drapery establishments; and Professor Kerr considered that the clause

was badly worded, the draftsman not being able to tell the difference
between a 'line' and a 'plane'. Building height at 75'0" was considered
reasonable by Cates, though he preferred the Parisian rules for relating

397
street width and building height (32). The two storeys in the roof,
plus the roof itself should, he felt, be fire resisting and the height

of the storeys should be limited. The R. I. B. A. draft Bill had

suggested 201011 as the limit to the two storeys in the roof, and also
a limit to the number of storeys in the roof of buildings less than
751011 high, otherwise it would have been possible to build five

storeys in the roof of a building 741011 high. There was now a need
for ground floor external walls to be allowed to be quite open, as any
limit to the height of shop fronts would make magnificent shop fronts,
such as in the Leipsigerstrasse in Berlin. impossible in London -a
point made by Stevenson. Cawston added that as the height of buildings

was now limited, speculators might wish to increase the number of

storeys by reducing their height, with the ground floor becoming

relatively insignificant (a distasteful prospect to those used to the

traditional emphasis attached to the important ground floor)9and he

therefore suggested that a ground floor storey should be controlled at

a minimum height of 101011. On this matter of openings in walls,

Bernard Dicksee considered that the rule to have openings only up to
half the lengths rather than the area, in a storey would lessen the

amount of window space. In a house 1510" wide overall, with a door

31011 widel one could only have one window 31011 wide, even though the

room behind might have been 111011 wide. Matters of fire protection
still not fully considered. Whilst had to be still 411
were windows
back from the face of the wall ("which had spoiled the development of
Queen Anne architecture"), there was, as Kerr noted, no control on
'iron skeletons' and some of the terms used in the clauses dealing with

chimneys and low pressure hot water pipes were very vague. Edmund

Woodward then pointed out that the Bill took no account of a new
building type then springing up, one with trade premises on the ground
floor and dwelling rooms for employees up above as in Wood Street and
-
Fore Street - and these needed separate fireproof stairs. There were

also now 'separate sets of offices's built on an open plan and not
divided by party wallr., since it was not known at the outset who would

occupy them. These points had been raised by the R. I. B. A. at the draft

Bill stage, but not inserted by them. Flats also, if not over 31600

sq. ft. could go as high as they pleased without needing any fireproof
floors. W. D. Caroe, referring to the thorny earlier regulation for

party walls to project above the roof, thought it unfortunate that so

much notice had been taken of the recommendations of the Insurance

398
Companies. In Leedss Bradford, Huddersfield, Sheffield, Liverpool,
Manchester and other Northern towns, this rule had been dispensed with.
Would it not be possible, he argued, to adopt the principle followed in
Hull where party wall parapets were not required to buildings over a
certain height? To counter the claim of northern sanity in this matter,
it was pointed out that party walls above roofs had been required by
the recent (1892) Act for Towns and Populous Places in Scotland.

There was some concern over the proposal to make by-laws under the Act.
To have them for open space, the setting backof buildingsand the
height of buildings was considered to be undesirable, since they would
lack conviction, and furthermore the L. C. C. wanted to make them without
the approval of any higher controlling body. By-laws might however
be just suitable for controlling the scantlings and timber joists (not

in the statute as then proposed)(33), and for the protection of iron in

relation to fire. There was also, in connection with by-laws, a

possibility that the existing ones would be annulled by the repeal of
the old acts and that as no new by-laws could be made for three months,
builders would make good use of this opportunity to avoid all such
(In the howeverýthis by the
controls. event possibility was foreseen
legislature and successfully avoided, see Table 14, sheetIO, clause 216).

On the artistic aspects of the proposed regulations, Statham made great

play of the restrictions placed by the controls on monumental cornices.
21611 would be the maximum projection, yet since there had been, as he

said, "lately a revival of interest in Classical and Renaissance

architecture", the example of the Riccardi Palace at 91011, the Strozzi

at 81011 and the Guadagni at 710" would be hard to emulate. Longstaff,

the Chairman of the L. C. C. Building Act Committee, reported that the

L. C. C. had been very concerned about the effects or, influence of the

legislation on art. But they had received no guidance from the R. I. B. A.

His Committee had now allowed oriel windows, wooden bargeboards,

mouldings and decorations to dormer windows, and had introduced controls
advertisements (sky signs) which buildingsq but they
over often spoiled
had retained the limit on projections in the interests of public safety.
No guidance had come from the Art Committee of the R. I. B. A. on the best

proportions to relate street width and building height, nor on the

matter of the projecting party walls above the roof. To all this

399
criticism E. T. Hall replied that "no suggestions were offered because
j
architects wished to be unrestricted, and if regulations were suggested
in regard to the art of their buildings they would find themselves

under restrictions which would destroy the artistic value of London"

(34). Arthur Cawston wanted to avoid bad designs, such as the example
he quoted of Shaftsbury Avenue, but wondered how they could get good
design, as in Mount Street., and proposed that there should be established

some form of "Committee of Taste".

Longstaff explained the reason for the speed at which the Bill was
being conducted. It was primarily due, he said, to the impending

election of the following year. W. Wallace Bruce, Chairman of the L-C. C

Housing Sub Committee identified another potential fault in the

legislation - the probable clash between the new Act, - the Public

Health (London) Act of 1891 and the Housing of the Working Classes

Act of 1890. One Act would allow buildings to be put up - but other

acts might later class the same buildings as insanitary and bring about
their demolition.

At the Architectural Association only 25 members appeared to discuss

the new Bill on 30 March 1894 (35), yet the L. C. C had, for the first

time, taken the initiative to seek the views of this Association.

T. W. Goldsmith insisted however that the A. A. was very concerned at the

effects the legislation would have on aesthetics -indeedit had already

petitioned against the carrying up of the party walls above the roof.
4
It was pointed out that the same insurance rate was charged in towns

the party wall did not come through the roof as was charged in
where
London. The A. A. 's opposition was to be effectively countered by the

evidence of Captain Simmons of the Fire Brigade in June (36). The

main battle ground was over Part IV - the open space and height of

buildings. The 'shaving clause' had been invented by the Local

Government Board and used in Liverpool since 1890, but there it was
for domestic buildings. Even then, Liverpool was proposing to
only
modify it in the case of shops on the ground floor with a dwelling

overl where shops covered the whole of the site allowing the angle to

be measured from the level of the first floor. Now the L. C. C. were

following Liverpool, the rule was now to apply to dwellings in new

streets. The effects on town development would be obvious. "The

decrease in habitable space proposed means ... the increase of the

...

400
borders of the Citylt (37). The A. A. was concerned at the special
controls and consents vested in the L. C. C., /any clauses which perpetuated
old or outworn buildings, clauses which would raise the cost of building,

or clauses which would interfere with freedom in design or which would

make architecture Itstereotypedlt, as they described it. They objected
to the cornice rulesq preferred a room height of 71611, and asked for

window frames to be allowed to be flush with the outer face of the wall:
"We might thus be able to emulate some of the charming facades which
are special features of the City of Bath ... the present Building Act
was regulated to suit the exigencies of the stucco Victorian era of
Classical or Renaissance architecture, in which the detestable window
reveal was desired" (38).

limitation the 0
The on mansard roof to an angle of 75 would also be a
Itserious injury to design", 83 a
at least should be possible, and the
rules for the internal light wells and for lifts also caused the A. A.

some concern.

More redrafting was undertaken by the L. C. C. in April 1894. It wast

they said, all much more difficult than had been originally thought,

since there were so many variations to cope with, particularly with

regard to the space about buildings and their height, covered by
Section IV (39):

We admit the force of the argument, confirmed as it is by the experience

of provincial towns, that building regulations, if too stringent, may
defeat their own object".
Proposals were now made to deal less stringently with business premisesi

yet more stringently with artizan and labourersdwellings - the

argument here being that the houses of the other classes were not so

crowded, and that they could afford to look after themselves. The Bill

was generally rationalised and made rather simpler by reducing the

number of 'exceptions'. The clause relating to the storage of timber

which had always provoked so much opposition, was almost withdrawn in

April. But it too was amended quite dramatically, and still retained.
The clause on non-combustible signboards, that is, advertisements on

sheet metals was however removed (40). There had'been only four fires

a year on average in timber yards over the previous 13 years and it

was felt that the retention of the detailed regulations for timber

stacks could "wreck an otherwise good bill" view that was supported
-a
by 52 votes to 32 (41). It was also noted that there was no'provision
in the new Bill corresponding with section 3 of clause 27 (part 1) of
the 1855 Metropolitan Building Act - that is, a building with independent

401
stairs, deemed to be a separate buildingg being divided vertically or
horizontally into 216,000 cu. ftmaximum (42).

Concern over 'vested interests' was the reason put forward by 'The
Builder' to
explain its criticisms of the revised Bill as it was in
July 1894 (43). The Bill had survived twenty sittings of a Commons
Select Committee, had passed its third reading and was on its way
through a Select Committee in the Lords - when the maximum height of
buildings was now set at 8010", (44) for the same reason that the Lords
had raised the building height to 901011 when the L. C. C. (General Powers)
Bill came their way in 1890 (see p. 363). One clause, no. 44, nbw allowed
801011 high buildings, but they could be in streetsthat were only
401011 wide; yet another clause, no. 46, said that no building, in a
street laid out after 7 August 1862, which was narrower than 5010119

could be higher than the width of the street. Exactly what the
.
precise date had to do with it was beyond reasonable explanation - at
least to 'The Builder'. Streets were going to be too narrow -there
could be no more like Portland Place, Regent Street (86,011) or St
James' Street (801011). It was all 11proputtyq proputtyl, (45)-
proputty,
The'shaving clauselangle was now 63120, 45 0 to
not - another concession
the 'vested interests', certainly not for the benefit of the inhabitants
of the poorer parts of London. It was felt that the new angle would now
suit the speculative builder and his influential friends, but not the
poor, living in the parts of London identified in Robert William's ý'London
Rookeries' and "More Light and Air for Londoners'. Shops could now
extend back again over the rear ground floor space, and compensation was
now allowed for setting back - again, both the result of the pressure
of 'vested interests'. The restrictions on cornices, so vehemently
attacked by Statham at the R. I. B. A. remained the same, except that they
could now project 21611over the public way - but for Statham they would
always be 11starved and deformed".

'The Builder' also put forward the view that the Bill was making "bids
for the working class votes" in its separate treatment of the open

space regulations at the rear of working class homes. Longstaff

objected to thisland recalled that earlier bills had treated all

domestic buildings alike, but open the of dwellings had
space at rear
been objected to by "gentlemen connected large London and
with estates"
it had not been possible to carry the Bill in that form. The L. C. C

402
claimed that the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890 compelled them

to clear slums, but there was nothing to prevent an owner from re-

placing cottages with tall buildings, and the L. C. C. had pleaded for

protection on behalf of the ratepayers. The opposition agreed that

it was true, but that it did not apply to the better class of house -
hence the attempt to define houses by terms of measurement, an idea

which had its origins outside the Council. i. n Lord Shaftsbury's and

then Mr. Torrens and Mr. Cross's legislation (46).

Back in the technical world, Banister Fletcher addressed the British

Institute of Public Health Annual Congress in July 1894. He was

pleased to see that asphalte could now be used as a damp proof course

instead of the more fragile slate, but objected still to the 911 wall,

the 911 x 1411 flue (why drain instead? ) and

to old not an unglazed pipe

the vermin prone spaces within the floor and ceiling construction and

in timber partitioning. Solid concrete floors, with a wood block

finish, and 3" concrete or breeze block for partitions, with cement

were his answer (47)-

skirtings,

By August the Bill was again modified and improved. Gone was the

clause preventing building within 201011 of the centre of a road, gone

45 0 the 63-210 at
was the angle at rear of all buildings -it was now

the houses too the the 450

rear of only, and gone was provision of

angle of light to be obtained outside the window of every habitable room

(1*8).

The London Building Act received the Royal Assent on 25 August 1894 (49).

The London Building Act 1894

1

The London Building Act Of 1894 was an extraordinary measure in three

respects. First, it was a private Bill, subject therefore to greater

tribulations in its promotion and passage through Parliament than any
Government sponsored measure, even though it had expert guidance from

the legislative draftsmen in the L. C. C. Secondly, it succeeded in

repealing the majority of all building legislation which had been

generated since 1844 - totally repealing seven public acts and partially

403
repealing seven others. Thirdlyl although it did not greatly enlarge
the range of areas falling within its controls - and drainage was still
left out it nevertheless enlarged its detailed coverage of its
-
technical clauses, so that it was possible to anticipate more variations

and permutations and to resolve them more easily. Permissive clauses

were introduced to try and meet such variations, a characteristic of a

and changing building world. This development was to be

more complex
one of the beneficial aspects of the new act in the long run.

In an effort to meet these varýing conditions, the L. C. C. had proposed

to have the power to relax its by-laws if and when the situation
demanded it. The Home Office were most unhappy about this, and sent

a memorandum to Lord Cross on the House of Commons Committee objecting

to this power of relaxation, stressing that a by-law should be universal

in its operation on all. Iongstaff, Chairman of the L. C. C.

and equal
Building Act Committeeýinsisted however that there was no point in

producing a by-law in London if there was no power for relaxation.

The experience of the provinces, where the by-laws were based on the
Modelýand where there were no powers of relaxation, had clearly shown

the difficulties that could arise in practice (50)-

Blaborate the Act it that it was mo-Ving more towards

as was, was clear

the use of theoretical concepts and further away from simple and

direct controls. The mechanism was becoming increasingly elaborate.

The complicated rule involving the 6310 angle was a geometrician's

delight, but hardly likely to inspire respect and comprehension on the

building site or drawing board, assuming he had one, of the small

builder, largely the cause of this

speculative whose products were
legislative No doubt it better than the 45 0 angle
very measure. was
in Liverpool, which Longstaff had himself seen in operation on
rule
his to that city, and which he resulted in very closely
visit considered
buildings (51) but its direct to the
packed - even so relationship
light difficult to accept. To
quantity and quality of and air were

Charles Fowler it was clear:

"that the old act was drafted by practical men, and that the new act
drafted by able men, doubtless had good ideas, but
was who many very
structural ideas, and that they were not perhaps therefore, quite
not
the men to draft a building act which essentially must be a practical
act and appeal to practical men" (52).

The example this, to Fowler's the 6310 angle -

most extreme of mind, was

the'shaving clause' as it had been called.

404
To analyse all 218 clauses and 4 schedules at length would not be

practical here. The principal clausesrelating to design and construc-

tion are outlined in Table 14, and many of them have already been
discussed in their evolutionary stages in the preceding pages. This

section now therefore selects certain of the more significant

innovations of the new Act and, as in previous analyses of Acts,

groups the matters under broad topic headings, but with an extra
preliminary paragraph on definitions.

The new Act bravely attempted to expand and clarify the range of
definitions, an inevitable requirement now that the Act was attempting
to meet a wider range of possible situations. Yet the definition of
a 'building' was again evaded, in what was after all a Building Act.

Foundations and fire resisting materials were more specific in their

definition, (see below) but the other definitions were made with respect
to the meaning of termsrather than the materials or elements of a
building. For example, the topmost storey was now to be either wholly

or partly in the roof, where there was a room in the roofq but there

was no definition of a Istorey', except that it was now to be measured

from the underside of the floor to the underside of the floor above.
Previously, the thickness of the floor itself had been excluded from

the storey in any calculations. A 'habitable room' was now defined as

a living room or one used to pass the night, although it was not

entirely clear whether a scullery or pantry were to be classed as

habitable rooms -a dilemma which has remained until more recent years,

with a kitchen being non-habitable but a dining-kitchen being habitable.

Hotels over 250,000 cu. ft. were now to be classed as public buildings,

acknowledging their special case as a complicated new and large building

typeq but curiously in the section on open space about buildings, a

domestic building was not to include offices or counting houses, as
they were in the rest of the Act. Commercial pressures were being

brought to bear here again -the land and space which would have to be

sacrificed, and the loss in rentable office floor area as a result of

the $shaving clause' would have been very costly on valuable central

city sites. On the other hand, the working classes werej as we have
seen, singled out for special treatment with respect to buildings
housing them, in relation to their height and the width of the street -
but no definition was given in this act of 'Working Class'. Finally,

405
it was now accepted that the Superintending Architect should determine
the front and rear of a building -a requirement made necessary by the

fact that on many estates in London, buildings had managed to evade

the regulations by having in effect two 'fronts'.

Streets (Table 14, sheet 1)

The controls for streets were very similar in those in the earlier

regulations in the Metropolis Management Act, from where they had

been transferred to the new Building Act. Mews were however now

classed officially as streets, and there was now an implied control on

the gradient of all streets. The precise Icentrel of the road was a

little obscurej as there was doubt over how the 'legal' or 'geometric'

centres were to be defined (53). The implied prevention of circular

or crescent roads by the clause requiring a street to connect at both

ends with two separate streets was unfortunate, though Longstaff

pointed out that the condition was permissive and not imperative, the

word was 'might' and not 'should' (54), but it was naturally going to

be hard to implement that in practice. The restrictions on street

widths still remained, which was also very unfortunate. Blashill

could still be heard plaintively pleading for something approaching

the 150'0" standards of certain streets in Berlin (55)-

Structure (Table 14, Sheet 2-, f, 7)

Foundations were now extended in their definition to include an

'artificially formed support on which the footings of the wall rest',

and therefore now permitted the foundation to be a bressummer or

bearing beam under a wall. (56) It was now legal for a wall to stand

on an iron girder (57). Whilst referring to iron work, it is

interesting to note here the inclusion of a clause requiring metallic

have ill per 101011
beams to of length, left at the ends for expansi6n -
in effect, the first of the steel work regulations (58)-
,

For walls, all the modifications were generally in the direction of

increased solidity. Innovations were rules for walls in the 100' to

120,011 height category, for hollow walls (but see below), for under-
pinning, and for walls to overhang by 61, concession towards con-
-a
temporary architectural taste. As examples of the increased solidity,

406
the following may be cited. First, walls not over 2510t? high and

under 30'Ott long, when there were more than two storeys, had noW to

be 13" thick below the top storey - not the two topmost storeys as in
the 1855 Building Act. If the topmost storey was in the roof, this

meant that all the wall, except about 41611 of the upper part of its

height, would have to be 13" thick "a bugbear to the jerry

...
builder" (59)- Secondly, taken out of the new Act was the old clause

of the 1855 Building Act (see Table 6, sheet 8),, which allowed a reduc-

tion in wall thickness if any external or party wall was not more than

251011 centre to centre from another external or party wall., and was
tied to it by floor beams. Thirdly, the clause relating to cross walls

was now modified to operate up to the floor of the topmost storey, as

opposed to two thirds the height of the external or party wall, as in

the previous Building Act. Finally, hollow walls, although permissible,
were still subject to the restriction that the thickness of one leaf
must be the same as the thickness laid down in the schedule to the
Act for a conventional solid wallq and therefore it was seen. even at
the timeq that the chances of using the hollow wall in London were
virtually nullified by this clause (60). N

The formation of recesses and openings in external walls was now to

be determined by a proportion related to the area of wall above the

ground storey only - although this did not of course mean that ground

storeys themselves were forbidden to have any openings (60. In the

past, this rule, when the ground storey had been taken into account as

well, had meant that architects had frequently had to extend unneces-

sarily the height of a parapet or to sink extra walling below the

ground storey, simply in order to obtain the right amount of solid

to secure the correct 50% balance to void (62).
walling of solid
To allow a recess under 511 to be corbelled out in brick or stone was

also new. The frames of doors and windows could now be fixed flush

with the face of the external wall. "This is a very important con-

cession to the taste for flush window frames which the Queen Anne

Revival has brought int' said 'The Builder' (63), but Professor T. Roger

Smith had reservations and considered that the flush window would be

unlikely to be used (64).

Roof construction over a height of 60,01, from the ground was now to be

of fire-resisting materials, with a suitable means of escape over that

height, such as the possibility of access onto the roof via a window.
The setting the 0
75 max. from the horizontal,
of roof angle at except
for towers and spires "will hamper architects sometimes in a rather
vexatious manner" (65). Longstaff's explanation of this was that the
District Surveyor had often allowed a 'wall' to slope a little so
that it could be called a 'roof' (66).

The perpetration of the clause requiring party wall to project above

the roofs was still a source of much controversy. 'The Builder'

conceded that it was now probably not necessary in "semi-detached

houses of a superior class", but thought it was still wise to retain

it on long terraces. A tenuous argument was then put forward by 'The

Builder' to defend the aesthetic consequences : the party wall

projection serves "to break the long monotonous line of roofs and

moreover it affords the chimney stacks a visible structural basis

instead of making them appear to stand on the slates" (67)- Curiously,

the rule which required party walls to project out 411 beyond the

eaves, serving the same function as the rule requiring party wails to

project above the roof, was not applied to the semi-detached house.

Whilst on party wall matters, it should be noted that the requirements

for party fence walls were now reinstated.

The change to allow wooden cornices and bargeboards to dormers, not

over 12" deep, to be no longer covered with an incombustible material

was also seen as "another sign of the influence of changes in

architectural taste" (68). The regulation preventing a wooden cornice

to be less than 1510" away from another building was now removedq but

outside stairst landings and steps had now to be of fireproof material.

The opportunity to now be able to build oriels, bay windows and pro-

jecting turrets from (69).

springing corbels was now generally welcomed

The 21611 cornice restriction had, partly as a result of Statham's

protests, been modified so that the limiting distance was now only over

the public way and not from the face of the wall. This meant that

a larger cornice was required, the building had to be set back

where

within its own site the necessary distance. (70) The continuation of

the excessively detailed rules for shop front projections were now

really an anachronism. They were over-complicated and largely out of

proportion to the danger they were supposed to prevent. They were,

said 'The Builder':

408
"all because of aiding and abetting the
architecturally absurd notion,
which belongs to a past age, that shops have some special need for the
introduction of gimcrack pilasters and consoles flanking their
windows" (71).
It was now possible to build chimneys on iron girders, supported on

party or cross walls; 8-2111brickwork was required around the flue, the

rendering and marking of flues became more detailed and stricter

controls were now operatedfor hearths. Flue sizes were not given, to

Banister Fletcher's relief, and indeed they had not been for a number

of years. This was more by accident than design, and Longstaff con-

cluded that there was now no need for sizes to be given. T. Roger

Smith, referring to the introduction of factory chimney rules into

the Actexplained that they were the consolidation of a series of

principles evolved as a result of individual submissions made for'

approval to the Metropolitan Board of Works in the previous years (72).

Regulations dealing with fire were further elaborated and extended.

A list of fire-resisting materials was given in the second schedule,
including now oak and teak of a minimum thickness, but there was still
some confusion over the terms 'fire-resisting' and 'incombustible'.
Stairs which in certain circumstances had to be fire-resisting could

still be of stone, an 'incombustible' material, but one generally

recognised as not being fire-resisting (73)- Fire-resisting material
was now required for all floors, landings and stairs in all public
buildings and in all buildings over 125,000 cu. ft. used as dwellings
for separate families. Further requirements for means of escape in

case of fire were also introducedand the rules for escape from

churches and places of public assembly came across from the theatre

regulations. The rules for furnace chimney shafts were introduced for

the first time, although they had been proposed back in 1878-

The horizontal party wall was now included, separating trade and
domestic areas in buildings over 1000 sq. ft. This 'was largely due to

the influence of the District Surveyors, f' ollowing a bad fire at

Lavender Hillin a-similar building (74). This particular clause, no.

74, was to cause a number of problems in its interpretation. office

chambers were not considered to be separate buildingsl but if over

2,500 sq. ft. (altered from 31600), then the floors had to be separated
by fire-resisting materials. At first sight this seemed less stringent

than the earlier rulings, but in fact it was more so because it

409
required fire-resisting stairs as well as floors (75). The idea of

not being able to unite rooms by means of openings penetrating the

horizontal fire-resisting floor was a difficult concept for some
architects, such as H. H. Collins, to accept, but as Blashill emphasised,
it was 'decidedly stressed that they should not be united" (76).

Briefly to conclude, we might just notefour minor aspects - the

appearance at last of some minimal control over the storage of timber,

controls on buildings erected under the arches
of a railway viaduct,
the exemption of small sheds not over 51011 high (presumably for dogs

or bicycles) and, reflecting again a change in fashions, the exemption

of glass conservatories (77)-

Ventilation, Space about Buildings and Drainage (Table i4l sheetsi

Window sizes now applied to all, habitable rooms, not just underground

rooms. as in the Public Health (London) Act of 1891, at a ratio of 1/10 th

the floor area. It was considered that "the area of window space
demanded will deprive some very aesthetic architects of the little

windows In which they delight" (78), a reflection of the growing

vernacular revival; but Banister Fletcher thought the regulations had

the "advantage that they will inform the builder what is considered to

be smallest window that ought to be made" (79), another example of the

conflict between the interference with the artist and the education of
the speculative builder, both operating at the extremes of the building

world. Fletcher also felt that it was necessary to have some regulations
for the windows in the roofs, for indeed, no sizes were given for

lantern lights? although an openable area equal to 1/20th. of the floor

area was required. Windows were also, he scathingly noted, often now

too near the floor, "solely the (80), another

on account of elevations"
of the revival of interest in the style, a matter to
example vernacular
which we return in more detail in the next chapter.

The rules for open space produced the most controversylas we have

already seen. The 100 sq. ft. of open space at the rear of habitable

basements was new in that it applied specifically to basements only.

It was not unreasonableg and there was still the concession to allow
the ground floor to extend at the rear over the entire site, to

satisfy the shopkeepers. The 63-10 angle has already been mentioned,
but it should be noted that the clause regulating the interior courts

410
for light and air to the inside of a block of buildings did not apply
to offices - "a serious oversightt' (81), but one which can again be
explained by the 'vested interestst and commercial pressures. The
clause requiring a window to ventilate a common access stair was new,
as was the ventilation under the wooden floor of any basement (originally
to underground rooms in the Public Health London Act of 1891) and the
clause requiring a solid floor to rooms over stables. The'height of
building controls have already been discussed, but the actual regulations
still had anomalies within them. For example, a street less than
50'0" wide, built after 7 August 1862, was to have its flanking buildings
no higher than its width. So a street 49101t wide was to have buildings
no higher than 4910"Pand 50'0't
yet a street widet such as Long Acre,
could have buildings 801011 high on each side, with two further storeys
in the roof above the 801011 limit (82) (see also Table 111, sheet IS).

There were no drainage regulations in the new Building Act. These were
still largely under the control of the local vestries and district
boards)though the L. C. C. had made some by-laws in 1893 (see p. 3") and
their consolidation had to await until 1900. (see Chapter X, page SIZ)

In this chapter we have seen the rush of activity which precedecL the
London Building Act of 1894, and have dwelt on this and the analysis of
the technical clauses within the Act itself. It was certainly the

major piece of building legislation in London in the nineteenth century,

and it placed the Metropolis back on a par with the rest of the countryt
and in certain respects ahead of it. It reflected the unique character
of London at the time, with its increasing density and its relation-
ship to a range of problems more intense than elsewhere in the country.
In that respect it acted as a pioneer to a new set concepts in
of
building regulation - such as the use of the internal court in the
deeper plans of commercial and residential buildings. It also con-
solidated almost all that had gone before in the way of legislation

affecting building, stretching back as far as 1844.. and it brought some

controls, such as streets, back into the framework of building
legislation. But substantial as it wasit was by no means complete,
for such varied matters as foundations, damp proof courses, concrete
walling, cellars, plaster and drainage all remained in a host of

411
scattered acts and by-laws. In spite of receiving a great deal of
attention in its formulation., it still managed to include anomalies -
such as that permitting the rebuilding on-existing former
sites of
buildings, up to the new height of 801011 in the older narrow streets.
It was not perfect - no piece of building legislation can apparently
achieve that distinction and it combined a curious
- mixture of old
and new regulations, but it was mandatory and it did have a consider-
able effect on the future shape of London.

Whilst much of this chapter has therefore been the

concerned with
interpretation of the ideas and technical in the Act,
content emodied
there are in contrast two broader issues which may be seen to have some
relevance to this part of this history the
- one concerning attitude
of the L. C. C., the other the attitude the
of architects.

The recently formed L. C. C. displayed an enlightened and sympathetic

response to the problem of building legislation. It and
was ready
willing to study and learn from examples in the the
rest of country,
particularly from Liverpool and Manchester; and it the advice
accepted
of the Local Government Board1with their they had
experience which
obtained in formulating and operating the Model By-laws. It took note
of the recommendations the Royal Commission Housing the
of on the of
Working Classes regarding space about dwellings, developments
monitored
in building technology, and listened to the by the various
advice given
professional bodies concerned with building.

At the same time it was also displaying an attitude towards

enlightened
architectural matters and was itself becoming the important force in
the architectural world, which it has maintained, the G. L. C., to
now as
the present day. Its new Architect! s Department had a talented staff
and received inspiration and encouragement from the Thomas
redoubtable
Blashill. It was itself now beginning to build houses
council - at
Brook StreetýLimehousejin 1892)and then it built Rowland Plumbe's

competition winning scheme for the Boundary Street Estate"from 1893

onwards. (Rowland Plumbe incidentally had been a District Surveyor).

Architecturally, both these schemes the freerg lighter
reflected and
more domestic style loosely termed Queen Anne, largely
which was
inspired by Richard Norman Shaw his
and school. The practical con-
sequences of designing and building in this imaginative
more free and

412
way in the early i89O's may well have had some beneficial effect on
the L. C. C. in the same years that it was formulating the new Building
Act.

The R. I. B. A. and the architectural profession generally presented

another influence at this time. The R. I. B. A. was now fully alive to
the problems of the Building Act, to such an extent that it even
produced its own proposals in the form of a comprehensive Bill. It
debated and discussed all these matters at great length, and made a
number of valuable suggestions which were erentually incorporated in
the Act. In that respect the role of the R. I. B. A. was very important.
On the other hand it was accused by the L. C. C. of not assisting in

giving advice on matters connected with aesthetics. (Only the less

conservative Architectural Association would apparently do that).

There was a strong element in the profession which refused to accept
that rules could be applied to anything affecting the creative art of
architecture. Now this may be seen to parallel very closely the

concern within the profession over the status of the architectland the

debate over whether one could ever examine and regulate within the

profession in the matter of artistic creativity. A number of Registra-

tion Bills were proposed at this time, and Norman Shaw and Thomas
Jackson's Memorial to the RIBA Council 'Architecture, a Profession or

an Art', appeared in 1892. The common link between the style of

Norman Shaw and the attitude he supported - an attitude free of

regulation - is interesting, but the significance lies also in the

timing of these movements, in the formative years of the London

Building Act of 1894. The problem of conflict between legislative

control and creative freedom is common to both the regulation of

architecture and the regulation of buildings.

'We shall return to conclude the developments in Lond6n, in Chapter X,

the final chapter in the main body of this work. Meanwhile, in the

following chapter, we return to the Provinces to analyse the develop-

ments which occurred there after 1890.

413
NOTES TO CHAPTER VIII

1 B. Vol. 60 No. 2517 2 May 1891 P-355.

2 B. Vol. 61 No. 2546 21 Nov 1891 P-389.
B. Vol. 61 No. 2551 26 Dec 1891 P-487-
B. Vol. 61 No. 2532 15 Aug 1891 p. 127- "The construction of
dwelling houses".
5 B. Vol. 63 No. 2591 1 Oct 1892 p. 265-
6 B. Vol-57 No. 2446 21 Dec 1889 p. 446.
7 B. Vol. 62 No. 2552 2 Jan 1892 P-7 and No. 2553 9 Jan 1892 P. 21-2.
8 B. Vol. 62 No. 2553 9 Jan 1892 p. 21-2.
9 B. Vol. 62 No. 2558 13 Feb 1892 p. 120-2.
io E. T. Hall's example was as follows: assume that there were three
buildings which did not have any back additions. Two faced each
otherg their front walls were 751011 high and they were separated
by a street 70'0" wide; the third was behind and backed onto the
second, between the second and third was also a road 70'0" wide.
By the operation of this section there must be above the ground
floor of the building 901011 between the backs of the buildings
and the external walls forming the backs cannot be more than
451011 high while the front walls, 70'011 apart may be 751011 high.
B. Vol. 62 No. 2558 13 Feb 1892 p. 121.
A second example was given by a District Surveyor in 1892:
If fronts of houses could be as high as their distance from the
opposite building in the street, backs could be twice as far as
they were high, assume the blocks to be in parallel rows back to
back. Then if a house were 551011 high at the back, but the avail-
able land at the back only 451011 deep, the top rooms would have to be
omitted "yet these would be the best lighted and ventilated in the
whole housel but for sanitary reasons they must go. "' e. g.:
B. Vol. 62 No-2553 9 Jan 1892 P-33.

11 B. Vol. 62 No. 2558 13 Feb 1892 p. 120-2.

12 B. Vol. 62 No. 2571 14 May 1892 P-378.
13 B. Vol. 63 No. 2598 19 Nov 1892 P-394-
14 B. Vol. 62 No. 2567 16 Apr 1892 P-306. and No. 2570 7 May 1892 P-357.
15 B. Vol. 63 No. 2595 29 Oct 1892 P-337.
16 B. Vol. 63 No. 2601 10 Dee 1892 P-455.
17 B. Vol. 64 No. 2621 29 Apr 1893 P-134-5.
18 Ibid.
19 B. Vol. 63 No. 26ol 10 Dec 1892 P-455.
20 B. Vol. 64 No. 2627 10 June 1893 P-450-
21 B. Vol. 64 No. 2628 17 June 1893 467-
p.
22 B. Vol. 65 No. 2648 4 Nov 1893 P-335-
23 B. Vol. 65 No. 2654 16 Dee 1893 P-451-
24 B. Vol. 65 No. 2653 9 Dec 1893 p. 429 and 430-
25 B. Vol. 65 No. 2655 23 Dec 1893 p. 461-2.

414
26 B. Vol. 66 No. 2663 17 Feb 1894 P-138-9.
27 B. Vol. 63 No. 2591 1 Oct 1892 p. 269. This was the case of Mr.
Goldsworthyq builder of houses in Friern Road, East Dulwich, with
911 walls over 2510t' high, when they should have been 13". He
tried to escape the penalty by calling the rooms in the roof
1boxrooms1q but they were 71611 and 91211 high, with windows and
fireplaces. He was ordered to amend, but an interesting point in
this case was the production of a photograph in court as evidence,
an early use of this invention in this circumstance.
28 R. I. B. A. Journal Vol. I No 10 1894 P-343-358 and Vol I No 11
390-408-
29 Ibid. P-397. Apparently the width of Portland Place was only due
to Lord Foley, the-owner of the land where the Langham Hotel then
stood (in 1894) having a condition inserted in his original lease
that no houses should ever be built on the north side of it - so
the street had to be made the width of his property.
30 Ibid. P-397-
31 B. Vol. 66 No. 2670 7 Apr 1894 p. 271-
32 R. I. B. A. Transactions Vol XXVII, 1877-8 P-32 'Middle Class Houses
in Paris etc (Laws and Restrictions)'and also R. I. B. A. Transactions,
New Series, Vol V, 1889, p. 20-22, 'Building Control in France'.
The relationship between the street width and the height of
buildings was more liberal in Paris than in London. e. g- 39'0"
high in streets up to 25'0" wide; 4910" high in streets between
2510t' and 321011 wide; 591011 high in streets between 321011 and
651611 wide; and 65,611 in streets over 651611 wide.
33 Rules for timber scantlings were later proposed in the Bill, but
were removed by an amendment made by the District Surveyor's
Association in 1894 (C. C. Knowles and P. H4,Pitt, The History of
Building Regulation in London 1189-1972, London, 1972, P-91)
34 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol-I, No. 11,1894, p-393-
35 B. Vol. 66 No. 2676 7 Apr 1894 p. 267-270-
36 B. Vol. 66 No. 2680 16 June 1894 P-457-
37 B. Vol. 66 No. 2670 7 Apr -1894 p. 269.
38 Ibid.
39 B. Vol. 66 No. 2671 14 Apr 1894 p. 292.
40 B. Vol. 66 No. 2673 28 Apr 1894 P-330.
41 B. Vol. 66 No. 2674 5 May 1894 P-349.
42 Ibid. P-353-
43 B. Vol. 67 No. 2685 21 July 1894 P-35-36.
44 B. Vol. 67 No. 2684 14 July 1894 p. 22.
45 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol I, No 11,1894 P-397- Quoted by H. H. Statham,
Editor of 'The Builder' at discussion at R. I. B. A. on 19 March 1894.
It was taken from Tennysont whose 'Northern Farmer, New Style' had
heard the sound of his horses hoofs going to the words 'proputty,
proputty, proputty'.
46 B. Vol. 67 No. 2696 6 Oct 1894 p. 245.
47 B. Vol. 67 No. 2686 28 July 1894 P-56.
48 B. Vol. 67 No. 2687 4 Aug 1894 p. 83.
49 57 and 58 Vic. cap. 213.
50 B. Vol. 67 No. 27o6 15 Dec 1894 P-435.
51 Ibid.
52 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol II. No 4.20 Dec 1SQ4. n. i22.
R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol III 4
53 no. 1 20 Dec 1894, p. i1O.
54 Ibid. p. 121.
B. Vol. 67 No. 2706 15 Dec 1894
55 P-435.
B. Vol. 67 No. 2695 29 Sept 1894
56 p. 215.

415
57 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol II, No. 4,20 Dec 1894, p. 116.
58 B. Vol. 67 No 2696 6 Oct 1894 p. 235.
59 Ibid- P-234-
"

T4'6
::
ST 57MC)O,
, v OPPVO)C.

li

is

6o R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol III NoA-, 20 Dee 1894, P-113-

61 B. Vol. 67 No. 2696 6 Oct 1894 p. 234.
62 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. III No, 41 20 Dec 1894, P-113.
TVol. 67 No. 2696 6 Oct 1894
63 p. 235-
64 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. II, No. 1*, 20 Dec 1894, P-117-
65 B. Vol. 67 No. 2696 6 Oct 1894 p. 235-
66 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol III No. 4,20 Dec 1894, p. 119.
67 B. Vol. 67 No. 2696 6 Oct 1894 p. 235-
68 Ibid.
69 R. I. B. A. Journal. Vol III No. 4,20 Dec 1894, P-117.
70 Ibid. p. 120.
71 B. Vol. 67 No. 2697 13 Oct 1894 p. 254.
72 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol II, No 4,20 Dec 1894 P-117-
B. Vol. 67 No. 2695 29 Sept 1894 p. 216.
73
74 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol X, No 9,7 Mar 1903, p. 243.
B. Vol. 67 No. 2697 13 Oct 1894 p. 254-
75
76 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol II, No. 4,20 Dec 1894, p. 123-
B. Vol. 67 No. 265ý 27 Oct 1894 p. 290.
77
B. Vol. 67 No. 2697 13 Oct 1894 p. 253-
78
79 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. II, No 4,20 Dec 1894, P-1i4-
80 Ibid.
81 B. Vol. 67 No. 2695 29 Sept 18911 p. 218.
82 Ibid.

416
THE LONDON BUILDING ACT 1894 57 and 58 Vic. cap. 2-13 TABLE 14
Sheet 1
DATE: 25 August 1894
Reference in text : page .4-oB

CLAUSE' SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

No., design and construction ANTE POST
,

Part I (Introductory, definitions etc)

see discussion in text,
STREETS
Part II FORMATION AND WIDENING OF
STREETS

7 Sanction required from L. C. C. for T12. c6- still valid

making street. c9 inc. in 1914

9 Grounds for refusal to sanction plans

of street include: -
a) if not 4010" wide, for a carriageway.
b) if not 2010tt wide for foot traffic.
c) if street over 601011 long, or under-
60,011 where the length is greater
than the width, is not open at both
ends from ground upwards.
d) if not 6onnected to a carriageway
at both ends.
e) if L. C. C. consider street should
not be for foot traffic only.
f) if gradient of carriageway is over
1 in 20.
g) if it contravenes any L. C. C. by-law.
12 L. C. C. may require wider streets, up to
6010fle

13 Position of new buildings with refer-

ence to new streets - L. C. C determines
prescribed distance. T22. c4
No working class dwelling to be
erected within the prescribed distance
to a height exceeding distance of front
wall from opposite side of street.
14 Notice to set back buildings. T22-c3
Part III LINES OF BUILDING FRONTAGE

22 General line set at 50'Otl- still valid

Part IV NAMING AND NUMBERING OF STREETS in 1914

SPACE ABOUT BUILDINGS (for Ventilation

see clauses 69 and 70 also)
still valid
Part V OPEN SPACES ABOUT BUILDINGS AND in 1914
HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS
40 100 sq. ft. area required at rear of T6. c29
habitable basements.
41 Space at rear of domestic buildings T12. c14
150 sqft. (This may be at first floor
level where ground floor is not in-
habited, otherwise it shall be at

417
TABLE 14
Sheet 2

ground floor and free from obstruction

T12
except for privies, w. c. etc. . c14 still valid
This space to extend entire width of in 1914
building and be at least 1010tt deep.

Height of building determined by

angle
at rear of 63210 (see diagram on Table
Ilk sheet 18. )
,
Only chimneys, dormers, gables, turrets

can extend beyond that line, and only

if they total not more than 1/3rd of
width of rear elevation.
In streets laid out before 1895 the

angle can start at a level 161011 above

the ground.

45 Courts within a building.

When height of court-from ceiling of
ground storey to top of parapet or new
eaves exceeds the length or breadth

of the court, ventilation is required

at the base to connect with the out-
side air. No habitable room to have

only window looking onto internal

court, enclosed on all sides, unless

width of court outside window = half
the height from the sill to the
(see T14, ).
opposite eaves. S21.

47 Limit to height buildings (ex-

of
cluding church or chapel) 8010tt T7-c3
=
(excluding two in
storeys roof and
excluding ornamental towers, turrets still valid
) in 1914
and other architectural features.
Rebuilding of any building existing
in 1894-may be rebuilt to same
height as before. Rebuilding in

row of buildings may also be to same

height as existing adjacent buildings.

48 Greater heights may be permitted by

L. C. C.

49 Heights of buildings in streets laid

out after 7 August 1862, under 50'011

wide, to be no higher than width

(see T14, S 10).
across street. l

STRUCTURE
Part VI CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS still valid
Wall thicknesses. See in 1914
53 schedule,
Table 14, sheet 14 ).

Recesses and T8.

54 openings on external c29
walls:
a) backs not to be less than 8-11t thick.
2
b) area of all recesses and openings
taken together, above ground

418
TABýE 14
Sheet 3

storey, not to exceed half the area

T8. c2q
of walling above ground storey.
Recesses in party walls:
a) backs not to be less than 13" thick.
b) arch over recess - two rings of
brickwork - arched over on every
(except for lifts. )
storey
Where recess not over 511 deepq corbel-
ling may be substituted instead of
arching.
C) area of arches - not to exceed half
whole area of wall in that storey.
d) no recess within 1321" of inner face
of external wall.
55 All woodwork in external walls (except T8. c24
bressummers and storey posts under,
and except frames of doors and windows
to shops) to be set back 411 from face still valid
of wall. But loophole frames and in 1914
frames of doors and windows may be
flush with external wall. By-laws
may except oak and teak from the
restrictions of this clause.
56 Bressummers. Wood or metal 411 min. T8 . c34
bearing at ends, with brick or stone
pierst timber or iron storey post -
in addition to its bearing on party
or external wall.
Space for expansion of metallic
bressummers to be it' for every 10101t
of length.
No bond timber or wood plate in party T8-c3l
wall.
Wood beams or joists - bearing on T8-c32
party walls at least 411 from centre
of wall.
Bressummer in party wall to be borne T8-c33
on templet of stone or iron.
Timber, not permitted in party wall,
may be carried on templet of stone,
iron or vitrified stone ware, tailed
into wall 82111min.

57 Combustible gutter, if next to T8. c25

external wall - then wall to carry
up as parapet 1211 min. above gutter.
Thickness of parapet = 8121t min.
59 Height of party walls above roof: T8. c26
-
Warehouses = 31011
Other buildings = 15"
Measured at right angles to slope.
For lantern lights see diagram on 'T14
sheet 18.

419
TABLE 14L
Sheet 4

6o Chases in party walls - 1411 max. T8-c3O

4111 8-21-"
width, deep thickness at still valid
back to be left. 710't apart on same in 1914
side of wall, 131t from external
wall. No chase in any wall under
1311 thick.
61 Roofs :#
External cover - slate, tile, metal T c52
or other non combustible material
except:
wood cornice or bargeboard to
dormers not over 1211 deep, and
except doors, frames etc to
dormers, lantern lights.
Every house or factory over 30'0"
high, with a parapet, to have either new T24. cl2
a) dormer window opening onto roof,
b) trap door with step ladder to
roof &r
c) other means of access to roof.
Roof angle: Warehouse = 470 T6. c19 still valid
Other building 0 in 1914
= 75
(except turret, spires, etc, in both
cases).
62 Not more than two storeys in roof. T4. Sc. K
If in house where upper floor is
over 601011 from street, then T21+- c7
storeys to be of fire-resisting
material throughout.
63 Escape at top of high buildings new
(over 601011 high) L. C. C. to approve
and issue certificate.
64 Chimneys:
a) On footings similar to adjacent
wall. But may also be on iron T8-c36
(*TI8. c36)
girders* or may be corbelled
out (if no more than projection
than thickness of wall below).
b) Can be at any angle, if soot T6. c2O
doors of 40 sq. in. provided,
otherwise 450 is min-angle. All
soot doors min 1511 from woodwork.
c) Iron arch or bar over opening - T8-c39
to tie abutments.
d) boiler flues (stoves, hotel cooking
ranges) to have flue 811, thick T8-c38 still valid
brick all round - from floor to in 1914
level of ceiling of room next
above.
e) flue for boiler or hot air new
engine - 201011 high.
f) Inside of flue, and outside where T8-c37
if passes through floor or roof or

420
TABLE 14
Sheet 5

near woodwork, to be rendered, par-

getted or lined with fire resisting
piping of stoneware.
g) position of flues to be marked on T3-c4i
outside, except external walls not
being built against.
h) jambs 812" min. width.
j) breast 411 min. T8. c4O-
8211'
k) back in party wall = thick, c42
from hearth to 1211 above mantel.
M) upper side of flue (when at less T8-c43
than 45 0 to horizontal, to be 812"-
n) chimneyt 3'0" min above highest T8-c45
part of roof or gutter.
0) top six courses in stack to be in new
cement.
P) max height of chimney = six times T8. c46
the least width - unless bonded
to another chimney.
q) hearth slab, 611 wider than chimney T6. c2O
opening and 1811 wide at front. and
r) slab on stone or iron beams, or T16-C5
brick trimmers. On lowest floor,
may be bedded on concrete.
S) hearth slab = 611 thick. still valid
t) flue, when against party wall, to in 1914
be surrounded by 411 brickwork.
U) chimney breast in party wall not to
be cut away without D. S. consent.
V) openings in shaft only for repair, MOO
altering soot doors, ventilating
valves etc. No opening nearer than
1211 to timber.
W) No timber nearer than 1211 to inside T8. c48 *see also
(T18-c47)
of flue; within 1011 of hearth
surfacet nearer than 211 to face of
brickwork of flue if such brickwork
812tt
is less than thick (unless it
is rendered ).
X) No wooden plugs nearer than 611 to
inside of flue. No iron holdfast T8. c47
nearer than 211 to inside to flue or
chimney.
65 Furnace chimney shafts:
a) brick taper = 22111per 1010". new
b) top 201011 to be 8111 min thick, still valid
I ncreases by lt bf ýicks for every
2010" downwards. in 1914
C) cap, cornices, etc, to be additional
to the thickness required for the
shaft.
d) to have satisfactory foundation. see also
e) footings - to project distance equal T20. c24
to the thickness of brickwork at
base.

421
TABLE 14
Sheet 6

f) width at base = 1/10th proposed

height' if square chimney, new
1/12th proposed height if
round chimney.
g) firebricks, if any, additional to
thickness of these rules.

66 Close fires, etc:

a) on incombustible floor 6t, thick,
for area of 1811 all around. T6. c21
b) pipe for steam, etc, not be be on
face of building adjoining public still valid
way. in 1914
c) no pipe for smoke nearer than 911 to T8. c51
combustible material.
d) no pipe for hot air or steam T6. c21
nearer than 611 to combustible
material.
e) no pipe for hot water to be nearer T6. c21
than 3" to combustible material. T12. c_16
This not applied to hot water or
steam at low pressure, i. e. when
provided with a free blow off.

67 Floor to furnace room, and any floor

within 1811 of oven, to be of fire- new
resisting materials.

68 Every public building, all buildings T6. c22

over 125,000 cu. ft. used for dwelling and
house for separate families: - floor T16. cg still valid
of lobby, corridor, passage, landing in 1914
stair, to be of fire-resisting
material and carried by supports in
fire-resisting material.
VENTIIATION
Common staircases in (see also)
69 tenements, to new
have window or skylight to open air T18-c56B
above ground storey. Principal stair
in every dwelling house to be vented
by window or skylight to external air.

70 Height of habitable room = 8161t floor T16. c4

to ceiling. In roof 81011 over not T7XI5
- 1
less than half the area 1
of the room.
Every habitable room to have one or T8-c57 still valid
more windows to external air or in 1914
conservatory - area to equal 1/10th
of floor area, half to be openable
with opening to 7'0" min. above floor
level.
Internal room or room in roof may be
lit by dormer equal to 1/12th of
floor area, half to be openable with
opening to 51011 above floor or by new
-
lantern light, of which a part
equals 1/20th of floor area can be
b--- ý
opened.

422
TABLE'i4
Sheet 7

Basement in house with wooden floor T8. c54

(except when wood on concrete) to have still valid
a ventilated air space beneath, with in 1914
air bricks.
Habitable room over stable - floor to T16. cg
be solid between joists, Stairs to
habitable room to be separated from
stable by 911 brick wall.

STRUCTURE Continued

71 Party arches over public ways - T6. c24

8111 brick or stone arch.

72 Party arches under public ways B111 T6oc2'-- P

brick or stone arch if span not
over 101011,13" if span between
101011 and 151011, and to D. S. approval
when span over 15'0t'-

73 Projections
a) copings, cornices, etc, also outside T6. c26
stairs and landings, architectural
projections etc (except cornices to
shops, and eaves etc to detached or
semi-detached houses) to be of brick,
tile, stone, artificial stone, slate,
cement or other fire-proof material.
b) all projections to be tailed into
wall and tied down, to D. S. approval. still valid
C) in street up to 30'0" wide, shop in 1914
front can project 511, and the cornice
13".
In street over 30'0" wide, shop
front can project 10" and the cornice
18".
d) no woodwork of shop to be higher
than 251011 above pavementl nor nearer new
than 411 to centre line of party wall
- unless there is a brick corbel etc
411 wide, projecting III beyond wood.
e) In street not under 401011 wide, bay
windows allowed over own land,
provided:
they are not over 3 storeys high,
do not project more than 31011, do
not project into the prescribed
distance, are not nearer to the
centre of nearest party wall than
the length of their projection, when
taken together they are not more than
3/5th of frontage of building are not
*
^
over public way and not used for
trade.
f) In streets not over 4010" wide,
projecting oriel windows and turrets

423
TABIE 14
Sheet 8

allowed, provided:
they project not more than 3'0" from new
the face of the wall, not more than
1211 over public way, are not less
than 101011 above footpath, are not still valid
within 41011 of centre of party wall in 1914
and the width per floor, in total,
is not more than 3/5th the length
of the wall at that floor.
g) pipes to take water off roofs, T8-c52
projections or bay windows.

71* Separation of buildings by proper T6. c27

party walls. In buildings over
1,000 sq. ft., used partly for trade
and partly domestic, the two parts
are to be separated by walls and
floors in fire resisting materials
and also the stairs etc used as the
approach to dwelling.
In offices over 29500 sq. ft., tenanted T16. cq
by different persons, floors and
stairs to be of fire resisting
materials.

75 Cubic contents. Warehouses T6. c27 REPEALED BY

250,000 cu. ft. (except buildings L. C. C. (General
2 miles of St Paul's Powers) Act,
within used for
boiler factory for steamships, or 1908 see page
gas retort, or electricity manu- 531.
facture, if single storey.

76 L. C. C. may give consent for larger new

buildings.

77 United buildings. Openings in party

walls, only if: - T6. c28
a) max 7'0" wide x 8101t high, in not
over half the length of the wall.
b) floor, jambs, head, of bricki
stone, etc. Two wrought iron
doors, ill thick, in rebated frames
or wrought iron sliding doors.
c) If wall not less than 2411 thick,
or doors distant from each other
by not less than 24tt, then opening
may be 916" high.

78 Public buildings - to District

Surveyor approvale
still valid
80 Stairs in churches and chapels and in 1914
places of public assembly generally: -
a) to be enclosed and supported by (T16. cg)
brick walls qtl thick. Treads to
be of uniform width.
b) stairs and passages = 4161t wide

424
TABLE 14
Sheet 9

min (3161, if only up to 200

persons accommodated).
C) every stair, passage, etc - for new still valid
accommodation over 400, to be in- in 1914
creased in width by 611 for every
additional persons, up to a max.
of 91011 wide.
Stairs over 61011 wide to have central
handrail. Two stairs may be sub-
stituted in lieu of one, if each is
2/3 of width required for one.
d) Where public are accommodated at
a higher level than others, then
a separate means of exit required,
to connect directly to street.
e) All doors to open outwards, no
locks or bolts.
81 This Act to apply to habitable build-
ings under railway arches. new
PART VII SPECIAL AND TEMPORARY T12. c12-
BUILDINGS AND WOODEN c13
STRUCTURES
PART VIII RIGHTS OF BUILDING AND
ADJOINING OWNERS.
PART IX DANGEROUS AND NEGLECTED
STRUCTURES
PART X DANGEROUS AND OBNOXIOUS
BUSINESSES
PART XI DWELLING HOUSES ON LOW
LYING LAND
PART XII SKY SIGNS
PART XIII SUPERINTENDING ARCHITECT
AND DISTRICT SURVEYORS
PART XIV BY-LAWS

161* Powers to L. C. C. to make by-laws for: -

plan, level, width, surfacel inclina-
tion of new streets and site for new
buildingsifoundations and sites of
buildings; materials for foundations)
thickness, quality, etc of walls;
size of wooden bressummers and floor
joists)protection of ironwork
against fire; woodwork in external
walls;
materials for plaster;
filling up of excavations within
3'0" of external walls of buildings.
lamps, etc, over public ways.
means of escape in buildings over
601011high.
PART XV LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
PART XVI MISCELLANEOUS
J
TABLE 14
Sheet 10

191
Buildings of historical interestq may new still valid
be restored in same material and to in 1914
same design, with L. C. C. consent*

197 Storing of wood - not nearer to street

than the building line, or 1010"
from furnaceq and not over 601011
hi g h
.
200 OFFENCES AGAINST ACT - unlawfully T22-c3
laying out of street etc.

201 Buildings exempt from Act - generally T6. s-5

as for the Metropolitan Building Act
1855, but with gas works buildings,
buildings associated with railways.,,
buildings belonging to Thames Con-
servators.
Then also the following: -
a) buildings not over 30 sq. ft, not T8. c2
over 510't high to eaves, at least
5'0" from other buildings or
streetl without stove or flue,
not beyond building line.
b) All buildings, not over 30'Ot' still valid
high, not over 125,000 cu. ft., not in 1914
public, 810tt from street, 30'Ot'
from building or land of adjoining
owner and not stables.
C) All buildings, not over 250,000
cu. ft,, not public, 30'0t' from street,
6010" from building or land of
adjoining owner, and not stables.
d) Party fence walls not over 7'0t'
high. T4. Sc. D
e) Greenhouses. T6. c6
f) Metal and glass cases for plants,
fastened to woodwork of sill - new
max. projection 12" beyond
external face of wall.
g) Valve openings in flues, if not T6. c6
over 40 sq. in.
202 Exemption of Government Buildings.

203 Re: electricity supply buildings.

205 Re: gas companies. new

216 By-laws made under

repealed Acts are still valid
to remain in i. e: -
force in 1914
1879 by-laws - see table 11
1886 by-laws - see table 12
1891 by-laws - see table 13
and regulations for theatres made
under 1878 Metropolis Management and
Building Acts Amendment Act.

426
TABLE 14
Sheet 11

FIRST SCHEDULE
I Every building to have walls of brick, T11. cl
stone or other hard and incombustible
substances.
Footings on solid ground, or concrete
or other solid substructure, T18-c15-
(includes bressumers) c16
(excludes open sheds, not over 1610"
high and not over 40 sq. ft. ).

2 Walls properly bonded with cement or T8. c13

mortar, no part to overhang a part
below, except by 611 and side
opposite such corbelling out is to be
carried up vertically on inner face.

3 Walls not of brick or stone to be T8. c22

1/3 greater than thickness in this
schedule.
4 Walls of other materials to be of T6. s7 still valid
thickness in this schedule or as in 1914
approved by L. C. C.

Hollow to be full but see

5 walls - one side new
thickness as prescribed in this also T25
schedule. and T26

6 Height of storey = topmost under- T8. c18

side of floor joist to underside of
tie, or half vertical height of
rafter, if no tie.
Other storeys = underside of floor
joists to underside of floor joists
in the next storey above.

7 Height of external
walls - measured T8. c18
from base to top
of topmost storey,
whether such wall is carried to the
full height or not. With a gable,
measured to half the height of
gable.

8 Length of walls - divided into

distinct length by cross walls. T8. c12

9 Footings - to
project half thickness T8-ci5
of wall on
each side, and to diminish
in regular offsets, and height of
footing = 2/3 wall thickness at base
(see T14-S15)
of wall.
10 Underpinning - to same thickness as new
wall above, in brick or stonel on
solid foundations, to D. S. satis-
faction.

11 Thickening of walls to D. S.
-
satisfaction. Forwall thickness
TABLE 14L
Sheet 12

schedule see T14. s14-s17

SECOND SCHEDULE
List of fire-resisting materials: -
i Brickwork, goodq well burntý hardq
properly bonded.
Mortar - good, lime, sharp clean sand,
etc.
Good cement, or cement mixed with good
sand, clean broken brick, flint, grit
or slag.
2 Granite - or other durable stone.
3 Iron, steel, copper.
4 Oak, teack - or other hard timber - new T24. cl-c7
when used for bearers or posts, or
in combination with iron and then
protected by plaster in cement.
Doors - oak, teak etc, not less than
211 thick.
Stairs'- oakq teak etc for treads,
strings and risers not less than 211
thick.
5 Slate, tile, brick, terra-cotta, when
used as coverings or corbels.
6 Flagstones for floors over archesq and
not exposed underneath.
7 Concrete - brick, stone chippings,
ballast, with lime cement or calcined
gypsum, wh6n used for filling in
between joists of floors.
8 Any material from time to time approved
by the L. C. C., as fire-resisting.
THIRD SCHEDULE DISTRICT SURVEYOR'S
FEES
FOURTH SCHEDULE REPEALS
The following legislation was not
repealed by this Act
Metropolis Management Act 185118 and
19 Vic. cap. 120. The following clauses
were still validt valid
still
71 Gulleyholes to be trapped. T6. c7l in 1914

72 Sewers to be cleansed. T6. C72

73 Vestry may compel owners to construct T6-c73
drains to common sewers.
J
74 Provision for combined drainage of T6. Cýý
block of houses.

75 No house to be built without drains. T6-c75

77 Powers to branch drains into sewers T6. c77
of Met. Bd.

428
TABIE 14
Sheet 13

101 No vaults or cellars under streets T6. clol still valid

without Vestry consent. in 1914
105 Paving of streets. T6. c1O5
202 Powers to make by-laws@ T6. c2O2
Metropolis Local Management Acts
Amendment Act 1862 25 and 26 Vic.

cap. 102.
61 Openings into sewers. (T6-c7l-
66 77)
Drainageg where no proper sewers
within 20010".
68 Interference with sewers.
Metropolis Management and Buildings
Act Amendment Act 1878 41 and 42 Vic.
cap. 32.
11 Powers to require theatres etc to T11. c11
remedy structural defects,

12 Inspection of theatres. T11. c12

Metropolis Management Amendment Act
1890 53 and 54 Vic. cap. 66

3-5 Powers of Vestry and District Boards still valid

in relation to street repairs, in 1914
sewers etc and penalties therewith.

6 No subsoil under street to be

removed without the consent of Board

or Vestry.

Public Health (London) Act 1891 54 &

55 Vic. cap-76 Sections 96 and 39 T13. s2

429
WALL THICKNESS SCHEDULE Buildings not Public TABLE, 14
and
London Building Act 1894 not of Warehouse Sheet 14
class

HEIGHT 100 i2o 90 - 100 80 -90 feet

13
13"

172 to 13"
13 "
13P
172'
17-2 22 113
311 17-21-

z,-11" 22 "
26" 22
11
17-21
26" 3Ol 21-t"
2 26"
21-21
26"
0-2fto
31 310 26" 3021
26"11 302-10

LENGTH up to over up to over up to over

451011 45 1Otl 45'011 45'0" 41-5
1Of' 451011

HEIGHT 70 - 80 6o - 70 50 - 60 feet

130

13l' 1 13"
1721
13"
130
172 too

N
22 " 22"
T 1712 11 17-21 if
if
17-21- 1p
172.

2 114
114
2 26" 21-1"
2 26" 21-21-"

LENGTH up to over up to over up to over

451011 1+51011 1*51Oll 1*5'0" 451011 451011

HEIGHT 40
- 50 25 - 40 up to 25 feet

1311 13" 2
82

130
13" 13
2
1712-M 17.21"
81m
17-21- 212 1 17-21 13'
LENGTH up to over up to over up to over
30'0" 30-45 45 1Olt 35'Oll 35'0" 30'0" 30'0"

430
TABLE 14
Sheet 15

and not more than two storeys

or having more than two storeys

NOTES

1. Party and External walls to be of same thickness.

2. If any storey is over 16 times the thickness of walls in this
schedule (in height), then thickness in that to be
storey
increased by 1/16 part of height of the storey (and walls below
increased likewise), but the additional thickness may in piers
whose collective widths =i length of the wall.
3- No storey enclosed with walls less than 13" thick to be more
than 101011 high between floor and ceiling.
For cross Walls, see Table 14, sheet 16.
5. According to Definition No 10, a wall may also be carried on a
"bressummer".

FOOTINGS for all building types (see Table 14, sheet

First Schedule, clause 9

t/ t/2
2

2/
3

431
WALL THICKNESS SCHEDULE TABLE 11*
London Building Act 1894 Buildings of the Warehouse Class Sheet 16

HEIGHT 100-1201 go-loot 8o-go,

LENGTH up to over up to over up to over
45' 451 451 451 45' 451

Thickness 31" 35111 2611 3 0-21 26t' 30-21"

at base
Thickness
for top 13-21" 13-21" 13-21" 13-21" 13_21" 13 -21
161011 of wall
HEIGHT 70-80' 60-70' 5o-6o,
LENGTH up to over up to over up to over
451 45' 1+51 451 45' 451

Thickness
21-111 261t 21-111 2611 21-11t 2611
2 2 2
at base
Thickness
for top 13_21't 3 -21 13-21" 13-21" 131"
161011 of wall
HEIGHT 40-501 30-401
LENGTH up to 30-45' over up to 35-45' over
30' 115, 35' 1+51

Thickness
2611 21-It'
2 17-21" 21111 17-21" 13-21"
at base 2
Thickness
for top 13 -21 13-21" 13-21-11 13-21t' 13-21"
16,011 of wall

HEIGHT 25 -30'
top
LENGTH up to over up to 25'
451 45' -16,01,
any length
IiI tý Thi s par t o l
% " ',
Thickness wall to be c
U" 17 -21 13" If
at base i
not l ess thi ck-
Thickness t0 ,,, il
ness than the
for top 1311* '13" 13" 11 wall was to be
WO't of wall base I built solid
--I
t3e-cween -cnese
lines

NOTES
1. Party and external walls to have the same thickness.
2. Asterick* indicates that in walls not over 301 high, the walls of
the topmost storey may be 911 thick, if that is not over
storey
101011 high,
3- If in any storey the wall thickness is less than i/14th of the
height of that then the thickness
storeyq of that wall to be
increased to 1/14th of the height and the wall
of the storey,
below increased accordingly, but such additional thickness may be
confined to piers properly distributed, of which the collective
widths - 1/4th part of length of wall,

CROSS WALLS - FOR ALL TYPES OF BUILDINGS:

-
Thickness to be 2/3rds of thickness for
required party and external

432
TABIE 14
Sheet 17

walls of the same dimensions and of same class of building, but never
less than 8-zl-". No wall is a cross wall unless it is carried up to
floor of topmost storey and unless in each storey the total of
recesses and openings does not exceed half the whole elevation.
Where cross wall becomes external wall, to be same thickness as external
wall of same dimensions and class of building.

In all types of building covered by these schedules, where an increase

is required in thickness in cases when walls exceed 601011 high and
451011 lengthq or in cases where a storey exceeds in height 16 times
(or 14 times, as the case may be) the thickness Prescribed for its
wallsq the increased thickness may be confined to piers properly dis-
tributed, of which the collective widths amount to 1/4th part of the
length of the wall.
TABLE 14
\\ Sheet 18

London Building Act 1894

section 41 Domestic
buildings in streets laid after
1 Jan. 1895. (Horizontal
line raised by 16,01, in cases
of streets laid before Act of
-1894)

angle of diagonal line = 6310

SECTION

FROM-
'The London Building Act
ri0ontal lin 1894
Prof. B. Fletcher.
London, 1901,3rd Edition.
rrTr. yard Plate 2 above and
Plate 7 below
PLAN

cm 59
wall and
Party wall rn lights etc.
12l' higher
wider than
lantern lig

ý. f
TABLE 14
sheet 19

STREETS FORKED BEFORE 1862 London Building Act

1894. Sections 41,47,49-
Height and open spaces
about buildings

angle x= 75"max
angle y= 63210
dimension z= 801011 max
max. 2 storeys in roof

horizontal line
16,011
'r 'o, A' -1
street under 50'0" wide over 50'0" wide

STREETS FORI-EM 1862-1894

angle w= 45*
I --[a_ I ý]
horizontal line
,q 'd .1v 16,011
streets under 50'011 wide --over 50'0't
%. wide

STPYMS FORMED AFTER 1894

FROM:
'The London Building Act'
1894,
Prof. B. Fletcher.
ýtreet te--'SýOver London, 1901,3rd Edit.
under 50'0't wid; e 50'011 wide Plate 5

435
LONDON BUILDING ACT 1894 Section 40 & 41 TABLE 14
Sheet 20

Domestic buildings on old streets Domestic buildings on new streets

I
/
I
/ house house

HOUSES NOT INHABITED BY

PERSONS OF WORKING CLASS
/

/
/
/
/
- _L

HOUSES INHABITED BY
PERSONS OF WORKING CIASS
basmet

LL
1A0
05 f6c cL

a= house, not inhabited by a house with ground floor used

working class, with basement as shop, with basement, 100 sq.
100 sq. ft. open space. Shaded ft. open space. Shaded area is
area is building up to 16,011 building up to 161011 high only.
high only. b as above.
b= as above. c= as above.
C= as above. d= house, no basement, ground fl.
d= house, not inhabited by used as shop, shaded area is
working class, without base- building up to 161011 high.
ment. Shaded area is building e= house only, open space of 150
up to 161011high (as for shops). sq. ft. inc. w. c. not over 91011
e= as above. high.
f= houseq inhabited by working f= as above.
class, no basement open space Y= 631
of 150 sq. ft. inc. outside w. c. 0= open space.

y- 631
o= open space. W.C.

FROMz
'The London Building Act 18941,
Prof B. Fletcher.
London, 1901,3rd. Edit. Plates
I and 3
LOXWONBUILDING ACT 1894 TABTE it*
Courts within a building. Section 1+5 Sheet 21

eaves or parapet

f 2nd floor
COURTS VITHIN
A BUILDING
ENCLOSED ON Ist floor
ALL SIDES
ea r
ir
L"L [ ground floor
- -J-. habitable room

r-
PLAN SECTION
1. ab =j at
2. rectangular court defg will also comply if gd is not more than
twice do and if area defg - abcd

top of wall

2nd floor

COURTS WITHIN
A BUILDING
OPEN ON 1st. floor
habitable

Inc
OM SIDE room

ground floor

PLAN SECTION
1, ab -I at

FROM:
'The London Building Act
18941,
Prof B. Fletcher,
London, 1901t 3rd Edition.
Plate 4-

437
CCMPARATIVE EXAMPLES OF EUROPEAN TABLE I/*
DUILDING HEIGHT : STREET WIDTH REGULATIONS Sheet 22

Sources:
B-Vol-58 No. 2454 15 Feb 1890 p. 112
No-'2459 22 Mar 1890 p. 211
nef in text page 360

41
cm
cn

4.

cc

C2
i .01-II

I-I cm
Lo

LAJ

mi
cc

LA-
0
V 1
1i 1
-a14
14
IK

IIX
'Ar
A12

1 Ix
1 73 II

cm
fi 11
a 41 i
4. 'a

-a1.. . 7& 00".

1 o -- - ;- P
1'.
w je
b 2
4,;C3 a64*-, m
Ilk
V.
"A 'Matz
W C2 Cý

X,
-4

+I+
++ 00111 -- -ii! -
+
+
+ 4- +I
+I 4
4- 4+ ++ +
L
C2 4:3 C2 cm C3 C3
C2 00 IS 1.0
Z

Co

438
SMIMY OF HISTORY OF THE HOUSING REGULATIONS OF THE TABLE 15
LDNDON COUNTY COUNCIL 1889-1900 Sheet I

1889 The only conditions, laid down by the Secretary of State

were:
1. Limitation of the height to 4 storeys
2. Living
rooms - 144 sq-ft. min., bedrooms - 96 sq. ft. min.
As from 3 Deco 1889 the L. C. C. regulations for dwellings were
1. Stairs not to be surrounded by rooms, should be 41011
wide min. with a dado of glazed or hard pressed bricks.
2. Conditions for basements to be used for dwellings.
3. Baths and washhouses to every block of dwellings.
Closets to have doors and windows to external air.
4. Living room - 144 sq. ft. Bedrooms - 96 sq. ft. min.
5. Height of rooms - 91011 min.
6. Every room if practicablej to be distant from any
obstructing building by 11 times the height of such
buildingg and never nearer than the height of the
building.
January 1893 : the above modified, due to cost
1. dwellings allowed uP to 5 storeys

2. room height reduced to 81611

3. and later the width of staircases reduced to 31611

1893 : requirement for all staircases to have access to the yard

1894 : requirements of Secretary of State at their least

exacting level

1894-1898 : tendency to improve class of accommodation - and therefore

cost

1898 plans submitted to Secretary of State showed

1. Living rooms average size - 155 sq. ft.
2. Bedrooms - 102 sq. ft.
Finally settled at the following sizes:
1. Livingroom = 160 sq. ft.
2. Bedroom - 110 sq. ft. (or 100 and 120 sq. ft. when there
were two bedrooms)
These figures became the precise standard. A 45 0
angle
of light to all habitable rooms was also insisted on after
1898, and balcony access discouraged.
But then at the end of 1899, costs again forced the size of room to
-be reducedl and they reverted to the sizes of 1889, i. e. 144 sq. ft.
TABLE 15
Sheet 2

living rooms, 96 sq. ft-bedrooms.

Note : all these regulations are the standards applied only to the

L. C. C. schemes built under the Housing of the Working Classes Act

18909 part 19 designs for which had to be approved by the Secretary

of State, The Local Government Board approved schemes under Part 2

of the Act. They had a strict attitude to the following: -

through ventilations lobbies between living and w. c. 9 stairs coming

out of the kitchen, wall thicknesses and other detailed points.

From "THE 11OUSIWGQUESTION IN LONDON 1855-190011, C-J-STEWARD. L. C. C.

igoo. p. 48-51.
CHAPTER IX

MODEL ANI) PROVINCIAL BUILDING BY-LAWS -1890-1914

This chapter is concerned with the developments of the Model By-laws

as they were extended to keep abreast of new demands, and as they were
Implemented in practice in the provinces. The vocal call for reform
came Initially from the rural areas, and in particular from the
'landed gentry', whose rights to build cheap labourers' cottages were
being increasingly challenged by the encroachment of urban by-law
standards into the country areas. Alongside this there was also a
constant clazour for a more up-to-date and flexible method of by-law
control generally. In both casesl the freedom and opportunities
offered by the new Ideas of the town planning movement brought the
greatest challenge to the restrictive framework of by-law control.

But before resuming the analysis of these developments, it is necessary

to return to the point which marked the end of chapter VI, namely the
now powers for by-law control offered by the Public Health Amendment
Act of 1890. The Model By-laws made soon after the passing of that
JLct must now be briefly analysed within the main topic headings already
used In this respects namely streets, structure, ventilation and
drainage (1).

Model Dy-laws made after the passing of the Public Health Amendment
Act 1890

Streets (Table 16, sheet 1) Before 1890 it had been optional for a
private developer when planning a layout of streets and houses, to

provide a secondary means of access for the removal of refusev although

it had been a fairly common practice in the North of England. From
1890 howoverg a local authority couldl if it wished, and if it had
adopted the Amendment Act, make a by-law compelling the provision of
such a secondary access street - but only if it could be shown that it

was really necessary. A layout with semi-detached houses, or with a

water borne sewerage system would not therefore justify the provision
a secondary access street (2).
of
Structure (Table 16l sheet 1) The power to control the construction

441
of hearths was nowl very belatedly, accepted and a draft model clause
appeared In 1890t based directly on the corresponding clause in the
Metropolitan Building Act of 1855 (3). Hearths were a relatively
minor area of control however - much more significant were the
controls on the sizes of timbers for roofs and floors.

Roof timber controls had not been included in the Model By-laws of
18779 (even though the powers had been there in the Public Health Act

,of 1875), since it was then felt that only control the
over roof

covering - by an incombustible material could be included. This

- was

also the case In Londong and furthermore, it was felt that

generally
the traditional practice of roof construction was quite adequate.
With regard to health, the inclusion of any linings bituminous
such as
felt9 to Insulate the topmost room and to help to prevent rain

penetration, was rejected "because of the increased they

cost which

would Impose on builders" (4).

Now that the Amendment Act of 1890 allowed 'floors' to be controlled

by by-lawng the Local Government Board's officials decided to draft
model clauses for both floors and roofs. In doing this the two
officials concernedq W.Casson the lawyer and P. Gordon Smith the
architect, obviously used the Liverpool regulations as a precedent,
although they did not admit this at the time (5). As far as can be
ascertained. there were no other comparable regulations then in
existence. Liverpool had maintained its timber regulations
from at
least 1825jand by 1882 they had been updated by Goldstraw, the City
Engineerl In the Liverpool Improvement Act of that year. As table
16, sheet4 shows, the new Model By-laws followed them closely. Three
Interesting points are revealed. First, unlike the very earliest
regulationst the new rules were related to the clear bearing between
supports. In the earlier rules they had related simply to the full
length of the actual timbers themselvespregardless of any intermediate
support surprisingly
-a naive and crude understanding of structural
principles (6). Secondly, a comparison between Liverpool's earliest
regulations and the new Model By-laws, separated by some fifty yearst
reveals a refinement of the ratios of sectional sizes of the timbers
to relate more closely to the greater variety of spans -a reduction
In cross sectional area for the shorter spans, and an increase in area
for the greater loading over the wider spans in the later by-laws
-

442
largely as the result of experience and observation on sitelrather
than the more abstract and obscure rules of the theoreticians such
as Tredgold (see Table 169 sheet 4). Thirdly, the based
sizes were
on the assumption that 'good seasoned pine' would be used and,
although a warning was included referring to the differing sizes of
timbers then being imported from America and Scandinavia (7).,, it was

acknowledged that variations in size could be made where local

practice could be shown to be adequate. General rules and formulae
were therefore included to assist in making such comparisons on a
reasonable basis (Table 16, sheet2-). It that
was also accepted
'herring-bone' strutting could lead to a reduction in the sizes
specified for joists (8), but no indication was given this
at stage
as to how this was to be calculated. Indeed, the whole matter was,
In spite of the valiant efforts of the Board's to
officials make the
controls comprehensive but not over-oppresive, a very imprecise area
of regulation. Not many of the local authorities adopted these
timber by-lawsl largely because they had insufficient ill-qualified
or
staff to deal with the complications of calculation and inspection.
It In not surprising when one remembers that the expert London
District Surveyors had managed to secure the omission of these same
controls from the 14ndon Building Act of 1894 (see chapter VIIII
note 33)o

The parallels between the Model By-laws for fire-resisting floors and
stairs In certain public buildings and those in the London Building
Act of 1894, reflect their common parentage in the offices the Local
of
Government Board, but in Knight's Model their range was increased
beyond the London standards. Whilst London confined its attention
to lobbies, corridors and stairs in public buildings and tenements
over 122,5jO00 cu. ft., the Model By-laws included warehouses, chambers
(i. e. offices), the stairs of any domestic building, the
with sizes
of their treads and risers specified for the first time; and the floors
of rooms over stables. This latter point was made rather late in the
day, and Its role was to change to the fire-resisting construction for
the floors over motor garages by the 19201s. In practice hardly any
of these by-laws were either made or aPpliedl the only ones to gain
any wide support were those controlling staircases in buildings.
public

The list of fire-resisting materials included within the new Model

By-laws can also be closely paralleled with the second schedule of the
London Building Act of 1894 (Table 14, sheet 14 so it is not repeated
1
here. The only variations were that the Model By-law schedule did
not Include doors which were not less than 211 thick, and for stairs
it set a minimum thickness for both treads and risers Of 112", whereas
London had maintained 2" for this regulation.

Ventilation, open space about buildings and drainage, (Table 16, 3)

sheet,

If a Local Authority adopted Section 23 of the Amendment Act of 1890,

it could now legally make a by-law to control room height. Initially
Dr. George Buchanan, the Board's Medical Officer and P. Gordon Smith
the architect, recommended 91011 as the minimum, but many local
authorities thought that this was excessive and declined to make such
a by-law. The Board were persuaded to consider 81611 - or even 81011
for the parts in the roof (9)9 but it was not 1912 that the
until
official recommendation was published as 8, ot, (10). The curious rule
of one minimum height for a habitable room of conventional proportions
and then another minimum height for an attic under a sloping roofywas
challenged at the outset. If one was adequate in a rectangular roomp
how could it be adequate over only a portion of the area of a room. -
In the roof? tNore decisive legislation
on this is called for"
demanded 'The Builder' (11). With regard to drainage it is only
necessary to record that by-laws could now be made so as to affect
buildings erected before 18759 and part of the Model By-laws, series
iVb, were later made to cover specifically this function.

The Thiral Model Dy-laws 18go-igot

On 23 September 1898 one JoHenry Dugdale wrote to'The Times'from

Rowney Abbey, Ware. Ile noted that in a recent issue, a 'Lady Chairman
of a Parish had bemoaned the absence of proper cottages
meeting* in
rural areas because of 'unreasonable local by-laws'. He himself, in
altering a barn, had had to 'diminish the accommodation in order to
with such by-lawal, and a large room upstairs
comply could not now be
used for habitation because it was not 91011 high for at least 2/3rds
of Its area. Furthermorol In spite of there being no other buildings
within half a mile on two sides and a large open yard on the third,
the local Medical Officer had made a special trip to check that the
by-law requiring 1510" of clear space at the front and rear was being
complied with (12). This started a flow of similar correspondence.
One writer complained about the restriction on thatch...
"which as everyone who has had the advantage of sleeping it
under
known in vastly cooler in summer and warmer in winter than the
flimsy slated - to say nothing of corrugated iron - roofs with which
the urban wisdom of Whitehall is disfiguring our country lanes" (13).
fie later added that in his Devonshire village. walls could legally go
up to 100 feet In height "yet there is no great likelihood Hankey's
of
mansions being copied in this neighbourhood" (14). A Mr. Hook, whose
local golf club had been classed as a 'dwelling house used for human
habitation' and liable for a number of unnecessary controls as a
result, called for the legislature to exempt rural areas from the
(after
by-laws alljo as he said, "'by' did mean Itown') (15), but as
William Welch pointed outj the continual march of urbanisation into
the country was Inevitableg the dividing line difficult to determine,
and perhaps therefore the 1,ocal Government Board's model should be
modified for rural areas (16). It was to take the three
next years
to achieve Just that.

As we have seen In chapter V, there had been earlier public health

developments In the rural areas. The Sewage Utilization Acts of '1865
and 1867 had applied in rural areas, the Royal Sanitary Commission
in 1869 had dwelt on the problem of the rural cottage and had
recommended the Introduction of simple by-lawsl and 1872 had seen
both an abortive Public Health in Rural Places Bill and the more
successful Public Health Act which had established rural sanitary
districts*

The Public Health Act of 1875 had only allowed rural to

authorities
control sanitary matters - closets, privies and drains - and, under
section 184, they were allowed to make by-laws to cover these matters.
In practice of course they were rarely applied, most areas lacking the
necessary staff and expertise (17)- Howeverl rural authorities could
also obtain urban powers on application to the Local Government Board,
andq by section 276 of the Public Health Act 18751 if the Poor
of
1,aw assessment was not less than 1/10th of the total the
assessment of
district. Kidderminster was cited as an example - full urban building

445
by-laws had been adopted by a rural authority "without line
one of
them being either read or discussed" (18). There was a general fear
that this would have a disastrous effect on the working classes in
the country - new cottage building would be stopped)and old cottages
not worth repairing would be demolished. The cost of building was
already higher in the country than in the towns. The result wouldPit
was feared, be an increase in cost by 25% and a fall in the rural
population (19).

The first salvo from the architectural camp was aimed at the whole
administrative framework, and came from William Henman at the local
architect's Annual Meeting in Birmingham in December 1898 (20). The
by-laws werehe maintained, too confused, too detailed on matters of
minor importance and yet omitted matters of importance.
structural
They were all "wrapped up in vast amounts of legal jargon
unnecessary
and excessive verbiage" (21). How familiar that today!
still sounds
The rural aspect was not particularly highlighted by Henman, although
one member did point out that he felt by-laws should to
vary suit
local conditionsland that laws for towns might be for
excessive
country cottages. It was the design consequences, than the
rather
economic or sociall which were of more concern:
"As architects they would agree that the charm of our country towns
...
was the picturesque irregularity and diversity which existed, caused
by bay and oriel windows, overhung gables and such like projections,
and the introduction of timberwork. The charm of these features the
by-laws enforced in many country towns would tend to prevent, with
the result that in time our country towns would have their streets
flattened out in the utterly dreary and monotonous manner of those
in suburban Birmingham and Manchester. This they, as presumed lovers
of their country, and of the beautiful and picturesque, should
protest against and strive to obviatett (22).

With correspondence on the matter in'The Times', 'The Builder' in full

support (23)jand the Birmingham architects debating the it
matter,
was now Lacy Ridge who brought the problem to the attention of the
R. I. B. A. in London on 16 January 1899 (24). It he said, time
was,
to revise the Model By-laws anyway, since the new London Building Act
was now in operation, giving opportunities for greater freedom in '
building and design. He called for, and obtained, a special committee
to investigate the administration of by-laws in rural areas -a
committee of men 'mainly interested in country work' (25)9 which he
hoped would be as effective as the Practice Standing Committee (which

446
had been composed almost entirely of London men) had been in the
examination of the London Building Bills. He suggested that health
should be the main area of concern, with the inclusion of all buildings
throughout the country (how'railway stations their
got rid of sewa. 9a"
he could not say); with consideration being given to a greater
tolerance for timber in wall construction (the Model By-laws on this
matter seemed to him to be nothing more than a fine model for producing
with
dry-rot); and/the problem of firespread between terraces of buildings
in the towns
main streets of market - and here we see the first mention
of the deeply engrained London practice of party wall regulation being
suggested for the rural application. Ridge also suggested a three way
division of the by-laws : for large townsq towns of moderate size and
country districts -a pattern which was to be eventually attained,
although not quite identicallyg in the urban, intermediate and rural
models of the following decade (26).

At the Architectural Association, Dr. Poore stressed the problem of

providing cottages for agricultural workers in his talk in May
entitled 'Aspect and Soil in relation to a'Dwelling House' (27)- In
the discussion which followed, E. D. Till from Eynsford, explained that
he was striving to build 'isolated' (i. e separated
some distance from
each other) cottages all in wood for E100, in an effort to keep
workers on the land, but the imposition of the by-laws was resulting
in that sum being virtually doubled. Overcrowdinghe claimed, was
getting worse in the country, indeed it was almost as bad as in London.
A cheap cottage, on one eighth of an acrel would. #he suggested, ensure
'isolation', so as not to injure its neighbours, and also provide a
reasonable garden or allotment (28). Many rural officials were waiting
to hear the outcome of the R. I. B. A. Committee's deliberationss whose
report duly appeared in June 1899.

The Committee identified the following shortcomings. The by-laws were

not always well adapted to general use throughout the country, they
could be oppresive in rural areasý were often enforced unnecessarily,
and were often an interference with personal liberty. They gave use-
less trouble to local authorities, multiplied the number of officials,
and added to the cost of building. The by-law: "promotes monotony
in design, stultifies invention and prevents improvement", and "dis-
courages the erection of cottages for the labouring by landed
classes

447
proprietors on their country estates" (29). The Committee recommended
that party wall controls, sanitation and site preparation, the
with
possibility of street controls for areas likely to become urbang would
suffice for rural areas. At the same time they suggested various
revisions to the whole of the Model By-laws (which had not been

oficially revised since their first appearance in 1877), bringing many

of them, as they freely admitted, into line with the London Building
Act of 1894. From these proposed revisions the following are selected
for note! the omission or revision of the controls in
on wood external
walls, brick nogging, the height of storeys and the ventilation of
public buildings. No exceptions were to be made for any buildings
from the operation of the by-laws ("certainly not railway stations'll
which were still being built under their own private acts), for
except
small 'isolated' buildings such as greenhouses and the like. They

called for a 61011 wide footpath on one side of every new street, the
allowance for the space at the rear of a dwelling to be above the

ground floor (on the London modell allowing to back

shops extend the
full depth of the site), internal courts within buildings and party
the (again
walls projecting above roof on the London model). Wall

construction regulations should, they suggested, allow walls above

the ground storey to be of 411 timber studding with a covering of
tiling or plaster. Party walls should be thinner than the equivalent
external wallsl a reduction should be made to the thickness of external
brick walls when they had a tiled cladding (within the limitatipn. of
one storey above the ground storey); and a vertical damp proof course
should be stipulated rather than the basement cavity wall. Finally,

a special Technical Tribunal of Appeal should be established very

much on the London model; and the
longstanding diffuse
and most matter,
Of
lost in the haze of the Common Law%/the regulation 'Ancient
of
Lightsl., should now be incorporated (30).

A deputation from the R. I. B. A. met Russell, the Parliamentary Secretary

to the Local Government Board in October 1899. Russell patiently
explained that the business of the Board, advising local authorities
what to do.. "was always a delicate matter, owing to the jealousy of
local authorities at the interference of a central He
authority".
thought however that the R. I. B. A. 's idea of the by-laws,
grouping so
as to identify those which were applicable only to to be
rural areas,
a good oneq but could hold out no hope of any immediate legislation(3l)-

448
They had to await a new Parliament (32). They had to wait in fact
throughout J900. The Boer War held the stageg and the 'Khaki'
election of October 1900 was an attempt by the Conservatives to
capitalize on the victory - this it did, but with no reflection on
the level of popularity of its administration. At the R. I. B. A. the
attack on the by-laws was still maintained. In January 1901 (the month
that Queen Victoria died)9 J. J. Stevenson was complaining of the harmful
effects they were having on "good modern architecture" - why did they
have to have high ceilings, why was there a ban on half-timbering, or
thatch on 'isolated' cottages or party walls projecting above the roof?
And some rural by-laws persisted with the old rule that required
window frames to be set back 42111from the face of the external wall,
yet that rule had now been removed from the recent London Act (33).
With remarkably effective timing, the President, William Emerson,
announced that the Council had, that very afternoon, agreed once again
to approach the Local Government Board on the subject (34).

A second deputation from the R. I. B. A. met Walter Long, President of

the Local Government Board in March 1901. He readily agreed that no
unnecessary impediments should be put in the way of local authorities
endeavouring to deal with the problem of housing the working classest
and he admitted that he was currently reconsidering the by-laws to see
what changes could be made (35). A further meeting with the Board's
Secretary, Grant Lawson, gave an opportunity for the draft of the
Board's Rural Model By-laws to be unveiled, although they were not
officially submitted to the R. I. B. A. until August that year. The

proposals were, as expected, mainly for sanitary controls, although wall

structure, foundations, space about buildings and ventilation were, to
a limited extent, also included. The R. I. B. A. 's call for the extension
of the party wall regulations was deferred until some unspecified date,
and was in fact not resurrected (36).

The subject of the rural by-laws was raised in Parliament. In April

1901 Walter Long confirmed that a series of Rural Model By-laws were
being (37). In May he informed that local
prepared a member authorities
hAd no power to dispense with by-laws in particular in
cases rural
districts (38)- (Indeed, there was discretionary
no poweri-once by-
laws were adopted they had to be upheld in all in June he
cases), and
informed another Member that, although the by-laws
rural did not
prescribe a minimum room height, there was a mechanism (under the
Public Health Act Amendment Act of 1890) to permit rural authorities
to do so if they felt it to be necessary (39)-

The R. I. B. A. generally received the rural model with approval, even

though the party wall matter had been omitted. Ridge hoped that
still
party walls could be regulated, distinct from external (40).
walls
Otherwise the construction regulations were not but the
onerous,
window clauses were seen by the R. I. B. A. as 'frivolous'.. and the rules
for space about buildings had, they felt, not been imaginatively

conceived to meet all possible permutations (41).

The Rural Model By-laws of 1901 are summarized in Table 17 and it will
be seen thatpalthough they have a more limited range, their technical
requirements were largely based on the Model of 1877- But there
were some variations. All buildings, other than public, houses or
warehouses were excluded, thereby exempting agricultural sheds and
the like (except that pigstyes and cowsheds if
were not exempt they
were attached to a house). The layer of asphalteor concrete over the
site of the house needed to be included only when the site was actually
damp or the soil of poor quality. This was a concession, but it was
not welcomed everywhere. One critic thought that this requirement
for the asphalte or concrete layer should be retained everywhere, a
better floor being obtained, he felt, from wood blocks being embedded
in the asphalte or concrete base rather than in any suspended timber
floor (42). The damp proof course was now to be below the lowest
floor, not below the timbers as before. There was no definition of
wall materials or their thicknesses; window areas were set for houses
only., and the areas of ventilators in rooms was reduced from 100 to
50 square inches. 'Access', rather than 'Ventilatorslg was now
required at both ends of drains in concrete under buildings; earth
cibsets were now classed with privies and could not be placed within
a building. The minimum distance of privies and ashpits from a house
was increased from 61011 to 101011, but one critic thought 25'011 would
have been better - and why, he wondered, did ashpits still justify six
separate clauses, in fact, why did you need ashpits in the
at all
country? (43)-

I
$The Builder' thought the rural by-laws to be reasonable (44), the

450
R. I. B. A. likewise, though it still continued to urge the adoption of
party wall controls on the 1,ondon model, but with a modification to
omit their projection above the roof in houses not over two storeys
in height (45)- But there was still to
nothing prevent a dwelling
being Inhabited before it was complete and fit for habitation, and, as
with the previous by-laws, the whole legislative framework in this
field was still only permissive and not mandatory.

By-laws in practice. Regional variations and case 1890-1901

studies

Whilst our attention has been directed in the previous pages to the
building by-laws as they existed on paper, it is time to turn to a
very different picture which describes their implementation and inter-
pretation in practice. It must be remembered that all these regula-
tions were only permissive -the Local Government Board had no power
to enforce any by-laws. Only if a local authority wanted to make a
by-law could the Board exercise any form of control and standardisation.,
by virtually insisting that it would its to
only grant approval a by-
law based on its own Model By-laws, unless there was a very good case
for a local variation. Again, the Board could have to
no objection a
local authority deciding to leave any matter it chose unregulated,
even where the Public Health Amendment Act of 1890 was in force (46).
And beyond the by-laws$ towns could$ and still did$ continue to seek
and obtain their own local acts$ often at variance with the standards
of the more universal by-laws.

An analysis of 75 Midland towns made at the turn of the century may be

taken to reveal a typical cross section:
Towns governed by by-laws made before 1877 = 13
Towns governed by by-laws made after 18779 but before 1890 = 19
Towns governed by by-laws made under the Public Health Amendment
Act 18go = 15
Towns governed by by-laws made after 1890, but only under the
1875 P. Health Act =7
Towns governed by by-laws made after 1890, and supplemented by
local acts =4
Towns where the by-laws were under revision = 16
Town with by-laws made in 1881, but not officially sanctioned =1 (47).
Examples may also be drawn from around the country to illustrate the
wide range of standards and the Picture Of confusion, contradiction and
chaos which seemed to exist almost universally.

Kirkheaton had virtually no controls at all. Dr. Barry-s report on his

findings there to the Local Government Board in 1891 revealed a

complete lack of regulations. "As a result of this enquiry", he wrote,

"it is evident that the 29 or 30 years jurisdiction by the Local Board

of Kirkheaton has been of little profit to the district" (48). One

wonders what profit it might have been to the local Board and its

associated fraternity!

Many towns maintained out-of-date controls. West Bromwich had by-laws

made in 1886 under a local act, by-laws that contained only a dozen

clausesq so basic that, ironically, the local Surveyor had no difficulty

in implementing them (49). Local Acts still persisted as mentioned

above. Leicester had eight local acts controlling building,. some of

which dated back to 1868. Amazingly, one Midland town obtained powers

under a new local act in 1883 to allow party walls only 41P thick, no
traps to drains, and rooms in the roof only 710t' high thereby
-

obtaining from Parliament controls which were less stringent and

completely at variance with the standards that the Local Government

Board were trying to maintain by its insistence on its own Model By-

laws (50). Three examples from the building press of 1896 revealed,
for exampleg that the by-laws of Cardiff, Cambridge and Burnley were
behind the times (51).
all well

Reluctance to change local by-lawsis understandable, particularly when one

remembers the power of local vested interests and the suspicion of
any interference from London. Rochdale's Building Committee deliberated

at length in 1895 whether or not to increase the wall thickness rule

from 911; to adjust the rules for the height of walls so as to accom-

modate attic bedrooms; and make owners responsible for the upkeep of
pavements - but decided in the end that the Town Council would never
approve such radical changes (52). Cardiff spent 22 years considering
amendments to its own by-laws- the replacement., for exampleof the

rule which required 4 square yards of for 5

antique open space every
square yards that were built upon, by more generous standards, but
there was an immediate outcry from the local shopkeepers, concerned
as always at the effects on trade and the reduction of sales space and
for the shops. One of the new regulations Cardiff
arcades proposed at

452
incidentally gives an example of the control of a local problem. Bad
flooding for many years, particularly in the Grangetown area,
resulted in a clause being proposed and subsequently approved by the
Local Government Board which required houses built on low lying land
to be no lower than 251011 above the Ordnance Datum (53).

The imposition of 'London standards' was strongly resisted at first by

the builders of Dartmouth. Their spokesman, 'Mr. Ditcham, demanded that
the Model By-law standards be dropped -the width of streets was, he

said, quite unsuitable for a hilly town like Dartmouth and the rules
for back-yards were considered to be most repugnant. Many houses in
Dartmouth, even in 1896, had no "air space" at the rear. It was
impossible to compete with London or even Brighton, maintained Mr.
Ditcham. Dartmouth should, he insisted$ be left to formulate its own
particular by-laws (54). But in this the Town Council
case was not
so easily swayed. It over-ruled the local objectors and to
proceeded
adopt the Model By-law standards (55). Resistance to London was also
seen at Bury. They would not adopt the Model By-laws because they
that they already had ample their
considered powers under own local
Act and by-laws. But they still needed the approval the Local
of
Government Board when it came to their request to change the size of
the backyard regulations. The Board's architect was unwilling at first
to grant their request, but was prepared to concede in the light of the

unusually wide street widths in Buryq although he insisted on sending

an Inspector down from London to investigate and report. Needless to
day, the local Council were far from happy with this interference, as
they saw it, in their own business (56). The degree local
of variations
was often taken to unnecessarily protracted lengths. At Halifax for

example, they insisted on their local practice of using wooden gutters

rather than the iron preferred by the Local Government Board. Wood,

they claimed, lasted longer than iron (sic) and furthermore, if iron
an

one was broken one would have to replace a whole lengthq rather than

splice in a new timber section. Halifax R. D. C. met the Local Goveýnment

Board over this major problem - but it was only after they found that

the cost difference was minimal that they agreed to accept the ruling
for iron gutter (57)-
an

Relaxations of the by-laws were occasionally made as a result of

pressures from industrial expansion, changes in house fashion and a

453
recognition of the peculiarities of historic areas. Coventry., for

example, had a sudden boom in house buildings as a result the in-

of
crease in the cycle trade - some 2,000 new houses were built in 1897 -
and a relaxation of the by-laws was made there specifically in order
to assist that development (58). Scarborough's new by-laws of 1890

mentioned 'cycle houses' incidentally, but more interesting the

was
Council's adjustment of the by-laws to allow the imported timber sizes
then currently available at Hull and Grimsby, to be for
substituted
the sizes laid down in the Model By-laws. Also, as the semi-detached
'villa' was seen to be on the increase in this seaside towng the
Council allowed the 'necessary open space' about houses to be divided
between the side and the rear, rather than all either the
at rear or
the side as before. (59) Open space buildings
about was also relaxed
at Cambridge in 1890. The Local Government Board there that,
agreed
when houses hemmed in on the small tight sites in the the
old part of
town came to be rebuilt, they could now be rebuilt on the same sites
with no more open space than before2 provided the houses were no
higher than the ones they replaced (60).

It was not only the local builders who fell foul the by-laws in
of -
at least one case a local authority itself found itself in an
embarrassing confrontation with its own by-laws. Birmingham, havingg
it will be recalled, been one of the first to adopt the Model By-laws
in 18779 submitted a scheme for its own artizan dwellings Milk
at
Street to the Local Government Board for approval in 1899. The old
requirement for party walls to project above the but
roofq still valid
almost never insisted on, was not incorporated in the Milk Street

scheme. The Local Government Board tactfully advised Birmingham to

revise its by-laws quickly before resubmitting their Milk Street

scheme. (The Corporation also had found that its by-law thickness
wall
requirements were making the scheme almost prohibitively (61). )
expensive
New by-laws were therefore hastily prepared and domestic
approved,
party walls now being legally allowed to rise only as far as the under-
side of the slatesq and the Milk Street scheme duly received the
Board's blessing (62).

Examples of local initiative or standards higher than By-laws

the Model

are, not surprisingly, more difficult to trace. One may note a strong
personality carrying a convincing argument against the reactionary

454
forces of a local council - such as Mn J. W. Brown, the Engineer at
West Hartlepool, a strong supporter of the water borne sewerage system,
who required every new house to have a water closet in 1892 (and a
covered galvanised dustbin which was to be emptied weekly) (63).

Contradictions appeared to exist within one town. There was Leeds

in 1896 with 1681 houses built, of which 1229 were still on the back-
to-back principle (64), yet the following it its by-laws,
year reviewed
took its main street widths up to 421011, included timber regulations
and generally updated its standards of construction (65). A year
later the Building Clauses Committee there was showing commendable
enlightenment when it reported that it was considering advice from

experts in the engineering trade to assist them i4ormulating "modern

structural requirements of the engineering shops" (66).

Such examples as these selected here show the variety which in

existed
formulation and interpretation of the local by-laws throughout the '
country. When we turn to the type of cases coming before the courts,
the range of devious devices employed by the more unscrupulous builder
begins to make the case for by-law control all the more tenable.

To build a glass conservatory, which was not covered by the by-laws

and then to replace it with brick walls and change its function to,
say, a bedroom, was a typical ruse - as one builder in Hastings
attempted in 1890. The Magistrate actually dismissed the case, and
it was only on appeal to the Queen's Bench Division that the judgment
was, rightlyq reversed. The fact that the erection was of the same
dimensions as the earlier conservatory did not make it a replacement
but an addition to an existing building (67). Buildings as
on wheelsl
we have seen before, were often a test. Mr. Hopkins' photographic
studio, trundling all of 31611 on a track, was held to be a building
(68), but tramcars, minus their tracks, were more difficult to decide.
Mr. Nuttall of Walkley, Sheffield, received a fine of only two shillings
as the Magistrate decided his tramcar was a building, but felt some
for the unfortunate Nuttall (69). Not only
sympathy was there a
problem in defining a building, but there was also a problem in defining

suitable materials for the walls of a building. Corrugated iron was

now cheap and readily available. The Sanatorium at Bedale School saw
fit to use it on a timber frame, but to Cuckfield R. D. C. it was not

455
'brick, stone or other hard and incombustible material', and the frame
being of timber was readily seen to be combustible. The Learned

Counsel decided that a wall was 'something that would stand by itself,

and as a sheet of corrugated iron clearly could not do that, the

off6nce was upheld. The Plaintiff unwisely persisted in his plea -

"what if the taken iron "but
wooden posts were out and ones substituted?
the Lord Chief Justice tartly retorted "we have answered one conundrum
and we dont want another propounded to us just now. You must be satis-
fied for the present with the answer you have got" (70). By-law case
decisions were not the most popular of cases amongst the legal

profession.

The'jerry builderýwas a frequent visitor to the courts. "I shall

build no more after this lot" stormed the builder of houses in Sharrow
Lane., Sheffield, as he left the box, convicted of using horse manure
for mortar (71)9 and surely Mr. Cleland's technique building New
of at
Chester Road, Birkenhead, with no footings, no damp proof course and

no outlets from untrapped drains justified his conviction (72).

Eloi Poggio, building inspector at Willesden, decided to cut a hole

in Mr Denman's houses - and found only a layer of rags, bones, crockery
and )regetable refuse. "The inspector only picked the rubbish out"
pleaded Denman. "There should be no rubbish there" retorted the
Magistrate and fined Denman L3 (73). Edwin Airey, in Birmingham,

claimed to be "born a plumber", but was not slow to cover up his

drainage workq the evidence of whose faults brought him a heavy fine

when they were revealed, and his case was not helped by the fact that
he "gave his evidence in such a loose manner" that he was ordered to
leave the box by the Bench (74).

There was also a wide range in the knowledge and understanding of

the function and technique associated with a regulation. Take the
damp proof course., for example: for Alderman Wray of Barnsley the need
for a damp proof course in an internal wall was "a practice quite un-
heard of"(75). On the other hand a builder in Edmonton wanted to use
felt as a damp proof course, a not altogether unreasonable suggestion
on the face of it, and it generated quite a lengthy debate with
coming from a number of expert In the
evidence sources. end it was
decided that it would not be impervious to moisture and the builder
lost his case (76).

456
Ventilation and room heights were a further source of contention.
Rooms in the roof, being in reality little more than boxrooms, with
no ventilationg no fireplace and a low ceiling were often let
illegally for habitation. Mr. Blakeman, builder of houses in Queen's
Road, Coventry, was fined for allowing a tenant to have a bed in one
of just such a lboxrooml as these (77)- More significant perhaps,
because it was one of the earliest conflicts between the 'landed

proprietors' and the rural by-laws, mentioned in the preceding section,

was the case of the Marquis of Hertford in 1899. The 'sleeping rooms'
in his addition to Hunsell's Farm near Stratford-on-Avon were only
71011 highq 21011 below the by-law requirement. The Bench, after much
embarrassecLdiscussiong escaped a direct confrontation with the Marquis
by fortunately finding a loophole which determined that the addition
was to an old building and not a new oneand the case could therefore
be dismissed (78)- Such an exalted personage could survive with
little trouble and some influence, but we shall meet less fortunate

cases later on. (see page 472)

The rigid insistence of the almost inflexible by-laws produced the now
familiar pattern of 'by-law' housing, by controlling street widths and
the space about buildings. This was appreciated even at the time.

Dr, Poore, for example, wrote to 'The Times' in 1898 complaining of

overcrowding, and noted "the speculative builder naturally takes them

[the by-laws] for his modell with the result that the country is

quickly covered with a grid iron pattern Of stuccoed slums, while

n
gardens in any proper sense cease to exist. 79). Again in 'The
Lancet', Poore noted that the builder simply followed the line of the

sewer provided by the local authorityl and as for open space "we have

engendered a stingy habit of mind towards the question of open space

round houses which almost amounts to a national insanity" (80).

In the provinces the controls on open space about buildings were more

rigid in their application than in London. A small building on the

corner of a triangular site, for example, surrounded by roads and ample

light and airt could not be sensibly rebuilt without sacrificing most

of the site to the open space required by the by-laws. Yet in London,

there were discretionary powers to consider the exceptional

where
a building could be rebuilt identically (8j). As an
case, such

example of the strict enforcement of the by-laws', we may consider the

case at Bawtry in 1899. The officials insisted that the backyard
should be literally at the back of the house. With a plot 88101, x
15'0" (see plan with note 82), the architects arranged the internal plan
of a new house to give the 'front' door onto the narrow frontage and
thereby the necessary yard for the open space at the 'back' of the
building. The local officials insisted however that the front in this
case was the long frontage and that to obtain the necessary open space
at the 'rear', the client be advised to buy more land from the
adjacent hotel. The lengthy battle which ensued resulted in a just
victory for the client - but it showed clearly the inordinate lengths
a local authority would go to to defend its own rigid interpretation
of its own by-laws (82).

If it saw fit, a local authority could apparently decide to its

call
own tune. Wimbledon Local Board determined that an addition to an
old building (which filled an (83).
open space) was not a new building
Although Wimbledon had a by-law based on the Model that
set requiring
no alteration should be made to diminish the area of open spaceg
Wimbledon's Town Clerk insisted that this to
referred new buildings
only (84). It caused a storm of acrimonious in 'The
correspondence
Builder' (85). London itself both
controlled new buildings and
additions to old ones in thisrespect. The Local Government Board

refused to intervene or comment. It was all too for Mr. Jackson

much
who had originally raised the matter. What was the pointg he asked,
if a local authority did not exercise proper controls and protect the
interests of the Public by means of its by-laws? (86) It looked to
him very much as though an 'addition', after some time
unspecified
known only to the local authority, could transform itself into 'new'
a
building. "So that after all, we come to this that it the
- rests with
Board to interfere or not pretty much as it pleases" (87). But there

was more to this than met the eye. If the building was exempt,, why
did the applicant bother to submit plans, and did the Board
why
receive and consider them? Furtherg the applicant himself
was none
other than the Chairman of the Local Board, and a builder into the
bargain (88). What more crushing evidence of possible corruptiong
influence and power in local affairs could be needed?

*
Pressures for change 1902-1914

The appearance of the Model Rural Building By-laws, and the issue of
the admonishing circulars from the Local Government Board, had little
impact on the rural authorities and did little to solve the problem of
providing cheap labourers' cottages. As Major Rash, M. P. for
Chelmsford, learnt in reply to his question in the House Commons,
of
the responsibility for determining what by-laws, if any, to make rested
entirely with the local councils (89). The Councils had to take the
initiative - and the legislation was still only permissive.

It was true that many Councils lacked adequate staff to administer by-
laws, yet on the other hand it was noted that t1some sanitary authorities
seem to make it a point of honour to sustain their by-laws, if once
passedg against all objections raised by building owners and even
against the recommendations of the Local Government Board themselves, as
though any criticism of them were a reflection upon their own perspic-
acity" (90). In spite of this attitudef the Model By-laws being
were
constantly amended, albeit in only a succession of minor and unofficial
amendments (these are summarized in Table 18). Visually, however, the
results of the by-laws were often disastrous: "in some absolutely
pastoral districts are now to be seen rows of cottages suitable only
to congested mining districts" (91). Guy Dawber, in his Presidential
address to the ReI. B. A. in 19(Y* was eloquent on the theme:
"these by-laws ... are killing the last lingering country crafts still
in use ... the poorest peasant - his antique smock has been discarded
for the cheap tweed suit, his wooden clogs for ready made boots
..
his cottage too is changed and is built now in depressing rows after
the ugly model laid down by the Local Government Board; the open hearth
has given way to the stoveg the red tiled floor to linoleum and old
fashioned lattice casements to sash windows and coloured glass - all
things that doubtless conduce to his material advantage but certainly
to the great loss of picturesque effect" (92).

The section of society most affected were the 'landed proprietors, and
not surprisingly they formed the core of a new body the building
called
by-law Reform Association (93). Founded by Sir William Chance in
December 19029 its membership was heavily laden the
with upper circles
of societyq yet its subscription of half a guinea did deter lesser
not
mortals, such as Pomeroyt Till, Henman, Poore, Ridge Shallcross,
and

whose names appear elsewhere in this work. Another to

name catch the

architectural eye within this early membership that (94);

was of Lutyens

459
later the name of C. P. A. Voysey was to be added to the membership list.
The aims of the new association were to promote new model rural by-laws,
to promote them in the country areasl to update the urban by-laws, to

secure a method of appeal to the Local Government Board and to generally

assist those oppressed by the by-laws. The Association immediately

set about its business with enthusiasm, establishing/committee and

canvassing opinion and evidence from a wide range of sources throughout
the country (95). But the upper classes tended to dominate : the Duke

of Westminster claimed that the by-laws "caused great hardship of the

rich" and t1that there should be no interference with a private

individual who erected private property upon his estate"; Lord Hylton
had seen "the consequent restriction of the erection of labourers,

cottages" while further down the social scale T. M. Shallcross from

Liverpool was becoming increasingly concerned that the urban problems
were not receiving equal attention (96)., and W. Henman, from Birmingham,

soon resigned completely when he saw that only amendments were going
to be devised, not a fundamental attack on the basic defective

principles of the by-laws as he saw them.

It is worth looking more ciosely at Henman's theories because they

reflect a remarkably sharp criticism whose validity is perhaps relevant

today. He considered that the by-laws were wrong because they

dictated what is to be done', before any actual requirements had been

ascertained. It would be better, he felt, to decide what was

I
detrimental to health and safety, and then to define what shall not
be done. This was in effect the principle of Common Law - it did not

say that everyone should do this or that for the public goodl' but when

any act was seen to be prejudicial, the law then required that such

act should not be done. In building, for example, a wall should not,

maintained Henman, be a certain thickness simply because of its

height and length set by the by-law before the function of that wall
had been ascertained. Ratherg the wall should be adequate, proved by

scientific means, for the function it had to perform in a particular

building:

"The latter is, I venture to say2 the correct principle all

on which
building by-laws ought to be framed, and no mere tinkering the
with
wording of existing by-laws will ever make them satisfactory or
in the interests of the community. In the existing forms
serViceable
there are hard and fast rules which are frequently inapplicable to
cases. Architectural Art is stifled,
particular scientific methods
are depreciatedg invention is stultified
of construction and the
of useful materials is barred". (97)
employment

46b
Another aspect of reform, and a premonition of what has only recently
been accepted, was given by T. M. Shallcross: "Instead of futilely
,
attempting to specify before in a positive manner the actual materials

and methods of construction ... which are unknown in the future, it

would be better to change the principle". Tabulate and analyse the

existing by-laws, identify their underlying principles, which would
then be universally applied as general principlesq and then let the

existing by-laws act as a "schedule of acceptable solutions" (in other

words., what we would call today the 'deemed-to-satisfy' clauses). A
Tribunal of Appeal would also be set up to sanction new methods and
materials. Function should be made a stronger determinant in setting

standards - street widths should be related not to their length but

to their useq or open space should be related to the location and

grouping of adjacent buildings, for example. All this was proposed

and set out by Shallcross in 1905 (98).

The Building By-law Reform Association drafted its own Bill'in 1904.
It was short - it was felt that it stood more chance of being carried
if it only had a minimum number of points - and it contained essentially
two main proposals (99). First, that houses outside a town, provided
they had sufficient open space*all round them, should be free from all
structural (though not sanitary) regulations. (The London Building
Act of 1894 exempted all buildings which had 30'0" of open space
the-
around them); secondly, that/Local Government Board should have

power to recall or substitute oppressive by-laws (there was a precedent,

claimed Sir William Chance, in the exemption procedure granted by the
Board to local Boards of Guardians in the administration of the Poor
Relief (100). )

Lacy Ridge took the Association's Billj with approval, to the R. I. B. A.

and vehemently attacked the whole by-law system:

"Now these by-laws, founded originally on the London Building Act, in
itself a piece of panic legislation, reinforced by the suggestions of
theories and faddists, extended recklessly from urban to rural districtsq
enforced by officials unfit or unwilling to put any but the narrowest
interpretation upon them, in the hands of local authorities who receive
their instructions from the Local Government Board, who in their turn
repudiate the responsibilitypand regarded on all hands as binding to
the letterl constitute a petty tyranny of a class to which hitherto
Englishmen have not submitted themselves" (101).

Ridge's own suggestions, of a mere half dozen by-laws for the country,
included a building line 201011 from the centre the to
of road allow,

461
as he said, for increases in traffic ("and buildings jutting into
out
the road are often an eyesore in country districtstl)l open space the

same area as the building, site concrete under a house, a ventilated

w. c. lobby, a Privy 15'0" from the house, and ventilation to waste

pipes before they entered the drain (102).

As the Building By-law Reform Association's Bill set off on its course
through the House of Lords in 1905, questions were put before the
President and Secretary of the Local Government Board in the Commons.
What effect were the by-laws having on cottage construction? The
President, Walter Long, was "still studying the matter", but at least
an official return had been ordered to show the extent of their

operation (103). "What action is being taken? Are the rules more
stringent than in London? " The Secretary, G. W. Balfour, "could not saylt
(104), but at the end of March 1905 he told the House that the subject
was receiving his attention, although he could not compel the with-
drawal of any existing by-law or issue any new building regulations
in their place (105).

The favourable reception given to the Cheap Cottages Exhibition at

Letchworth Garden City in July 1905 again lead to Balfour being

questioned. 'The Times'had mentioned in a leading article that month

that several of the cottages could not be built everywhere because of
by-law restrictions on timber walls and the size of rooms in the roof
(106), and Balfour promised to arrange for an official at the Local

Government Board to visit the Exhibition and report (107), but nothing

was heard of his findings.

The Bill itself came before the Lords for its second reading in Mayq

under the championship of Lord Hylton. The small scale and low key

tone of the Bill-were emphasised. As a salutary reminder of the need

to consider the Bill carefully however, their Lordships were reminded
of the fact that when the building clauses had come with the Public

Health Bill in 1875, no opposition had been expressed, except from

the Duke of Somerset who had expressed the fear, now vindicated, that

the building clauses might prove to be of a "harrassing nature'? (108).

Now the Surveyors' Institution had protested in January 1905 (109)

the National Housing Reform Council in April, Mr. Macdona in the other
House had been unable to re-erect his 'artistic (villas he had
villas'
just bought from the Paris Exhibition) in Lancashire, a county renowned
for its half-timbered buildings (110). Then there was Mr. Blunt, whose
iron cottages (painted green and held by their designer to be "not

ugly") had had to succumb to the rules of East Grinstead R. D. C. (111),

and above all there was always the unfortunate case of Mr. Justice

Grantham - the details of whose case we must defer to a little later

in this chapter (see p-472) (112). In the face of such evidence the

Bill was approved and referred to a Select Committee, who in turn

confirmed the by now well-known fact that the by-laws were indeed

stringent (113),. the third reading took place in August 1905. But
tand
it moved no further due to the resignation of A. J. Balfour's Conservative

Government at the end of the Autumn. Its course was resumed in the

Lords the following year, but we must pause to consider the opinions
forming outside Parliament before returning to follow its progress.
Taking the year 1905 we may select a number of opinions both for and

against the by-laws.

W. A. Casson, Editor of Knight's Annotated Model By-laws, and having been

in charge of the by-law confirming department at the Local Government
Board for 15 years, not unnaturally found little at fault. "The by-

laws" he said, "were not such terrible things as they were made out
to bell (114). Dr. Parsons, the Board's Medical Officer claimed that

there had been a great improvement in cottage building over 30 years,

and Brooke-Kitchen, now the Board's architect following the death of

P. Gordon Smitht considered that the by-laws "had a good effect on the
construction of villas think it has raised the standard of building
,I
(115). Some organisations,
very much indeed" such as the Rural Housing
Association (116) and the National
and Sanitary Workmen's Housing
Association wanted more control, not less, the latter even-sending a
deputation to the Local Government Board saying that the by-laws were
flabsolutely necessary" (117), and a local rural district surveyor
suggested at a Sanitary Inspectors' Association meeting that by-laws,
the same for both urban and rural areas, should be made to apply univ-
ersally (118). Indeed, the call for a Universal Building Act was
heard again (119) though many seemed to prefer the the
extension of
London Acts as a model (120).

The cry against the by-laws wast of course, a good popular theme for
the newspapers and was readily taken up by them (121). One such cry

463
came from the'Southampton Observer and Hampshire News'who, led by the

pen of a local architect, R. M. Lucas, attacked, not without cause, the

117 unreasonable by-laws operated by the South Stoneham R. D. C. Lucas's

bitter criticisms later re-appeared as a pamphlet entitled 'Anti-

Building By-laws, Suggestions for Reform'. "The by-laws, I he

said,
"have reduced the splendid type of 17th or 18th century cottage, with
its thick walls to a miserable thin walled brick box with a slate
...
lid, as Ruskin called it, made generally to a stock pattern, because
any departure in design or material are apt to lead to wearisome
explanations to a garrulous committee or to an official, who, in some
cases, at leastt combines the qualifications of a coster with the
of a censor" (122).
authority
Lucas's reforms centred on the idea of a 'schedule of instructions'

to intending builders' being issued by the local council to every

builder, who could ask for specialist advice if he needed it, but who
otherwise was to be left alone until he had finished his building. The
Surveyor was then to inspect it, and to issue a Certificate of Merit
if the result met with his approval - or of Demerit, if it did not.
This Certificate would be prominently and permanently displayed in the

building for all to see - ox attractive ideag but rather naive and

open to considerable abuse.

'The Times'received letters equally, if not morel devastating. One

writer blamed the by-laws for the lack of morals and physical health
in the country. People, he felt, were becoming brutal, selfish and
demented beings (his words), physically inferior for the Army and
Navy. Germany was now the Model. Germany was, he reported, setting
the highest standards in planning towns. The Local Government Board

should send its officers to Germany at once. And with an appropriately

dramatic flourish, he concluded his letter with the words:
"Is it not far better to stop building altogether than let it continue
under the present conditionsl at a high cost to the rates present
and futures at an expense of pain and suffering, at a loss of the
appreciation of beauty and morals and a sacrifice of those Imperial
instincts that have made us the greatet- Empire the world has yet seen? "(123)
Such was the mighty influence of the poor by-law, at least in one
person's eyes. But the reference to Germany was very much to the point,
for their work in town planning was already capturing the English
imagination. The towns there were operating on a scale of both

planning and building houses within an organisational framework which

England sadly lacked, with the Germans purchasing land in anticipation
of suburban growth and planning to regulate that as it
growth occurred.

464
All this belongs to the history of town planning, which we are not to
explore here again to any depth, but, as its example spread to this
country it served to throw the inadequacies of the by-laws into sharper
contrast. A deputation of housing associations asked the Local
Government Board to prepare new by-laws for greater street widths, for
more open space at the front and rear of houses - all, as they said, on
the lines of Mr. Cadbury's model village at Bournville. G. W, Balfour,
however, whilst saying that the Board had no objection to local

authorities introducing these measures, added guardedlys"regard must

be had to questions of reasonableness and cost" (124).

The Municipal and County Engineers prepared a revised model code them-

selves in 1905, to lessen the restrictions and to lower the cost of

building. They included all the relaxations already proposed half
-
timber, corrugated iron, and the thickness but
of walls added as a
recognition of new advances in building, reinforced concrete and iron

or steel frames with a fire resistant covering of cement or plaster (125)-

All that emerged from the Local Government Board's offices however was
the Intermediate Set of Model By-laws (see Table 19)q where certain
modifications for wall thicknesses and for wooden walls were in fact

made, though the principal object of these by-laws was to cater for
rural places-who saw themselves in the process of becoming more urban
in the immediate future. They were also later found to be useful in
districts technically urban but essentially low density and residential
in character, and also for industrial boroughs which had a quantity of
factory building. This was because this model allowed them to ask for
factory plansq the benefit being that the authority could then
accurately assess the amount of drainage likely to enter their main
sewers. Finallyl the Board wrote to all rural districts in January
igo6., asking them to review their by-laws, to amend the urban by-laws
and to substitute the rural model if possible (126).

The Board's circular received rather scant attention, as Lord Hylton

to the Lords when he reintroduced his Bill
reported on 22 March 1906
(127), In most cases this was, as he said, because there the
wereon
local councilsýomen to whom it was a positive advantage to the
retain
complex by-laws, as they were all "grist to the "certain
mill" of
interested parties". Had not the Clerk the East Grinstead Council
of

said that a new code would make building easier "and that
and cheaper

465
would be very hard on people who had invested money under the old code"
(128). The Bill passed all its stages in the Lords, was read for the
first time in the Commons in Novemberbut got no further due to
disagreements with the local councils and the general pressure of
government business (129). There were in fact a number bills lost
of
that year because of the antagonism between the Lords and Campbell
9 Bannerman's Liberal Government. The two main points of this abortive
Bill were first., that it exempted buildings if they were surrounded by

sufficient open space., and secondlythat there was to be a new method

of appeal, and local authorities could override their own by-laws if

they were "manifestly impracticable". It would have been compulsory

in all rural areas; semi-detached cottages were to count as one building
if they had a proper party wall; and the provision for exemption if

a building was surrounded by sufficient open space, was to be extended

to urban areas.

More success attended the Government's own Public Health Bill of 1907-

Introduced in Februaryit was law by August as the Public Health Act

(Amendment) Act. By this a further fragment of building legislation

was added to the already long and complicated list. Clause 24 extended

the powers to enable a local authority to control the chimneys of

buildings, the height of buildings and the structure of factory chimney
shafts - this latter being a direct influence from the London Building
Act of 1894 (see Table 20). Further detailed regulations were added
to control the paving of yards, temporary buildings, and there were

clauses aimed at preventing alterations being made to the entrances to

courts which would result in them being narrowed or built over.

The By-laws in Practice. Regional Variations and Case Studies 1901-1914

Complication, contradiction and confusion characterise the formation and

operation of the local building by-laws in this final period. From

the variety available, a selection is made to show the extent of the

range.

The economic considerations and malpractices of the speculative

builder were inevitably still to the fore. Iocal builders in Swansea

466
complained that the requirement for 131" walls was stopping economical
house building - there was no such restriction in neighbouring Cardiff
or Bristol, nor in the larger cities of Birmingham or Liver Ipool, so
why should Swansea be made to suffer? (130)- Pudsey, on the other hand,
deliberately framed its by-laws in 1905 to make it easier for the
builders to erect economical houses, by reducing the height of rooms
from 91011 to 81011 and by relaxing the controls on timber but
sizes,
even so they could not successfully encourage the 'scullery-houses', a
type that Leeds was still building in sufficient quantities to
encourage local people in Pudsey tp move to Leeds and to-the cheaper
rents there (131). Equally, the Council Lincoln,
at whose by-laws
even the Mayor called "antique"t was quite prepared to allow 4211,brick
walls to the sides of tunnel passages "since it could mean more rent
for the working man if 911 walls were insisted on" (132). And the
shopkeepers of Plymouth bewailed the fact that open space had to be
provided at the rear of shopsq depriving them of valuable sales and
storage space. Rather than lose up to one third of the site with open
space on rebuilding, the Plymouth shopkeeper preferred to patch up
his existing building (133).

Plymouth's by-laws seemed particularly severe- a room 91011 high in all

habitable rooms meant mansard roofs to ensure any reasonable use of
the roof space- but geographical factors also Played a part, the steep
hills of that town having a devastating effect on street layouts which
lacked any gradient controls, and which produced difficult slopes in
streets laid at right angles to the contours (134). The same problem
was noted in Abersychang where the narrow Welsh by-
valleys and wide
law street widths also were reported to have effected the availability
of good building tand (135). If those streets to be
were considered
too wideq in other areas 36,011 was considered to be too for
narrow
"modern traffic", particularly in urban areas with the increasing use
tramways (136). Liverpool, in its Corporation
of Act of 1902 (137),
took the width of its main approach roads up from 36,01, to 801011 (138);
Manchester in 1907 made its main roads 5010" wide; and Oldham in 1909
set all buildings alongside the main approach roads 4010t' back from
the centre of the road (140). Some local conditions could never have
been anticipated from the distant Metropolis : Burnley, for example,
brought in new regulations for intersecting in 1908, owing to
streets
t1special and peculiar circumstances existing in Burnley to
with regard

467
loom-making foundariesq weaving sheds and other manufacturies"

Yet some towns displayed signs of tolerance and leniency. Hastings

allowed cavity walls, half timber and tile hanging in its by-laws of
1904 (142); Birmingham likewise, in 1909, with the addition of

regulations for steel and iron frames and an increase in the size of

space about buildings UP to 300 sq-yards (143), no doubt under the

open
influence of Cadbury, Nettlefold and T. C. Horsfall-Is enthusiastic reports
from Germany. The pressure of a growing seaside holiday industry

induced Littlehampton to relax its by-laws in 1904, to allow garrets to

be built in small houses without requiring an extra thickness for the

lower walls - "to benefit the tenants of small houses who required all
the rooms they could get during the season" (144). Billericay,

admittedly after some "pressure" from the Local Government Board, relaxed
its by-laws sufficiently to allow a Mr. J. Good to erect an experimental
Australian dwellingf adapted to this countryAs needs by a system of pile
foundations (no other details are available), which "go a long way
would
to solve the problem of cheap workmens' houses in the area" (145). But

concessions such as these were rare and the by-laws were generally
firmly maintained. Why else would one local Surveyor write to 'The

Builder', in 1906, desparately asking if anyone knew of any Borough

Council which had had its by-laws rescinded with Local Government Board

approval, or which had been allowed to adopt less stringent by-laws:

His own town wanted to repeal or alter its by-laws "because they have

stultified all building operations for ten years" (146).

Bad drafting of by-laws was not unknown. Angry debate ensued in the

Council chamber at Darlington when it was revealed that their by-laws

were not defined with enough precision to make the building of back-

to-back houses illegal (147). In the same year, 1902, Manchester

referred its new by-laws back to its drafting committee since they

contained, as one councillor put it "fossilized ideas and elementary

(148). But to stay with Manchester for a momentj a number
notions"

of new ideas were to be introduced into its by-laws five years later:

on cottages 24 (149); the

o, density control of per acre wider street

widths mentioned earlier; stair treads and riser at 911 and V respec-

tively; ventilation to stairs and an increase in the amount of open

houses to 250 sq. ft. (150). This latter duly
space around clause was
by neighbouring Gorton in the same year (151), being a
copied copying

468
feature we have seen before in the same area many years before (see

page US). The following year Manchester banned all blind alleys,
requiring now all passages to lead to main streets; specified that

blocks of houses should contain no more than 10 dwellings "to avoid

long monotonous rows". -(an obvious influence from the ideas of the town

planning and Garden City movement); handrails to stairs and a real

curiosity, which in the event was not approved by the Local Government

Board since they were not permanent fixtures- the provision of fire-

guards around domestic hearths (152).

The regulation of room areas had been proposed by Manchester in 1902 -

Liverpool still had such controls under its own local act - but the
Local Government Board were not in a position to authorize them in
the form of by-law controls (153). By 1906, however, Levenshulme was
proposing just such a by-law (154k), as was Widnes in 1908 (155), though
Oldham in its Corporation Bill of 1909 found its proposals refused
by a select Committee of the House of Commons (156). The one con-
sistent feature in all these proposals was that the only ones to come
through were those contained in the form of local acts. The range of

areas contained in the local bills proposed in 19i3, for example, varied
from 115 sq. ftfor living rooms at Aberystwyth to 132 sq. ft. at Morley,
then in contradictiong from 60 sq. ft. for the minimum size of a
habitable room at Morley to 90 sq. ft. at Aberystwyth (157). Many such
local acts were passed at this time - and many continue to be valid

to the present day (158). The local act was a persistent feature -
the Manchester Improvement Act of 1845, section 40, regulated the level

of the ground floor of new dwellings. It was still valid in 1967 (-159)-

There was a degree of influence emanating from the London Building Acts

which permeated through to some Provincial towns, particularly the

controls on fire matters. Keighley's Local Act of 1908, for example,

called for fire-resisting, material in all public buildings over 50,000

cu. ft., with the timbers for stairs specified as oak, jarraht teak or
kari; other structural timbers to be protected by 211 of plasterand
shafts provided for staircases (160). Oldham proposed fire
enclosed
for buildings over 351011 high (161), as did Widnes (162) and
escapes
Skegness

to London were the expanding

Closer suburbs On its periphery, outside

469
the range of the London Building Act, and having in most cases'local
by-laws based on the Model By-laws. London kept a watchful eye over
these boroughs, anxious to ensure that their regulations were sufficient
"to prevent slums being built round London" (164), no doubt in expect-
ation of a future expansion of'the great wen: At the 1900 conference
I Houses for the Working Classes'at The Sanitary Insitute, the
on
Chairman., R. M. Beachcroft, considered that it was Iftime the London
Building Act was made applicable to districts say within 20 miles of
London" (165). The R. I. B. A. likewise, in its annual report of 1903-4,

reported that it had drawn the Local Government Board's attention to

the desirability of maintaining uniformity in the local building by-
laws (some 29 areas in fact had such by-laws)., and suggested that the
Board withheld sanction from any new by-laws which would prove more
onerous than the London Building Act (166). The London Act itself did

not extend, for- in one district at least, Penge -it retreated. Penge

ceased to come under the London Building Act on 21 January 1902, and
formed its own code of building by-laws on the basis of the 1877 Model
By-laws (167)-

Whilst the majority of complaints about by-laws in rural areas were the

result of the adoption of urban standards, unsuitable to country

districtsl there was also, to a lesser extent, I an opposite to the
side

coin. Chester-le-Street,, for example, was a rapidly expanding urban

area in 1905, yet it still retained its rural by-laws, much to the

distress of Dr. Hill, the Medical Officer of Health for Durham. Even

he was prepared however, to admit some relaxation of standards (two of

them, site concrete cover and adequate room heights, had both been

cherished requirements of the medical world for many years), simply

for the sake of economy in building (168). Health took a second place

to financial speculation. Hayfield, in the Derbyshire Peak, was

experiencing the invasion of bungalow builders from both Sheffield and

Manchester in 1905 - builders who would not conform to the standards

of the local by-laws9 over wall construction in particular. Yet the

Local Government Board refused to allow Hayfield any discretion in

this matterg but was prepared to offer alternative model clauses for
for small houses (169).
wall construction

Finally, what of Liverpool, the pace setter of the 1840's 1880's?

and
Their regulations were again slipping behind the times, their Act of

470
1902 for example, still maintained the setting back of timber from the

external face of the wall by 4-21" (170), a rule which London had seen
fit to abolish eight years earlier. And yet the Corporation in
Liverpool were prepared to allow a building with two storeys of glass,
covering 3,600 sq. ft., without brick walls.. and the glass 3" proud of
the external face, so the contemporary description records 071).

T. Myddleton Sýalbross was Liverpool Is most vehement critic of its

positive by-laws. Whilst the rounding and splaying of corners, the

removal of posts supporting pavement awnings at the kerb (a vestige

of the 18th century street improvements),, and the provision of wider

streets were all acknowledging the growing pressure of town planning
ideasl the building construction matters were less advanced. Footings

unrelated to the nature of the foundation, illogical timber joist

sizes and unreasonable sizes for flues were some of Shallcross's

complaints (M). Rigid application of illogical by-laws, such as

those requiring the fixing of superfluous timbers in order to conform
with a uniform interpretation of the regulations. was apparently a
characteristic of Liverpool at this time (173). It was, as Shallcross
said, all "straining at gnats and swallowing of camels" (174).

Perhaps the ultimate proof of the inadequacies of Liverpool's regula-

tions came when the Corporation itself had to its
relax own by-laws
(by means of section 60 of the 1902 Corporation Act),, to allow alternative
provisions to be made for air space and ventilation, so that their

working class dwellings at The Peoples' Homes, Bevington Bush and

Arden Street be built (175)., and again in 1906,
could when the same
clauses were relaxed to enable a disused chapel in Netherfield
Road to be converted into a block of labourers? dwellings (176).

By 1907, the local architectural society in Liverpool were calling for

more "elastic" by-laws, particularly in order to allow steel and

concrete, since they had noted that f1rather than face delay, owners
abandon new methods of construction and fall back on old ways" (177).

The recognition of reinforced concrete came in the General Powers Act

of 1908 (178). This Act also repealed the old room size controls of
the 1846 Building Act, and now allowed living rooms to be 120 sq. ft.,

one bedroom 108 sq. ft., the others 95 and 72 sq. ft. Room heights still
at 91011, although 8101t was allowed in
remained rear bedrooms over

471
sculleries. The same act also moved into the town planning field,
just ahead of the national Housing and Town Planning Act 1909,
of and
introduced controls on the number of houses, their density, road and
open space layout (179). This influence the tjown
of planning move-
ment is resumed as a theme a little further on (page 474). Before

continuing with that it is necessary to pause and con's'ider a number

of significant cases which came before the courts in this period.

**

The majority of court cases reported in the building press concerned

building. in the rural areas. E. D. Till, from Eynsford in Kent, battled

unsuccessfully against Dartford R. D. C. who refused to allow him to

build timber cottages. Their pre-1901 by-laws "held a brief for the
bricklayer" and whilst, as Till insisted on pointing the King
out, of
Scandinavia could live in a wooden palace, isolated bungalows
wooden
were prevented in Dartford and in places as far Hampshire
apart as
and Anglesey (180). Furthermore, Henry Lovegrove,
as a London District
Surveyor pointed out in support of Till, such isolated small cottages
would have been exempt from the regulations in the the L. C. C. (181).
area of

Ernest Pomeroy, who, like Till, was also a member of the Building By-law
Reform Associations was prevented from erecting a billiard room at
Malvern. The building was to have been clad externally iron and
with
lined internally with matchboarding (182). There was a legal point
herej as there was with the similar case of Salt v. Scott Hall (where a
wooden bungalow built 200 yards from any other building was also pro-
hibited), in that the Justices did have a discretionary power (under

section 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879), but which they did

not see fit to implement. This power would have enabled them to inflict

only a nominal penalty or to dismiss the summons if they saw fits thereby

giving a much sought for degree of elasticity in the interpretation of

by-laws. Their refusal to use this facility in what appeared to the
building world as a trivial and unreasonable reading of the by-law,
caused resentment and an outcry in the building press (183)-

The case which caused by far the greatest interest this time
public at
was that concerning Mr. Justice Grantham. Refused by
permission
Chailey R. D. C. to build cottages for his labourers
own agricultural at

472
Barcombeg Grantham went ahead and built them, thereby breaking the law
which hel as a judge, was bound to uphold 084). When the case reached
the Lewes Bench a compromise ruling was arrived at. A part of the plans
were satisfactory, and other parts were not - "but it looked from the
drawings as if it were intended to conform, but did not, due to a mis-
apprehension". Grantham, who fancied himself as an amateur architect,
proudly refused a compromise and threatened to go to a higher court
(185). The outcome was altogether unsatisfactory said in effect
-it
"not guilty, but don't do it again". There was a popular outcry in

support of Grantham, but 'The Builder' was rather more cautious :

"looking at his drawings" it said "we do not think he should be trusted
to build cottages without the authorities'supervision" (186). Lacy
Ridge at the R. I. B. A. also remarked, in private to his fellow members,
that Grantham's "interest would have been better served by having a
proper set of drawings" (187). The cottages in fact
were nothing more
than a row of single rooms, each room having only one door to the
outside air. Chailey R. D. C. had adopted the rural by-laws word for

word from the model of the Local Government Board and, to be fairg all
they wanted to see were proper plans of what was intended to be built,

not Grantham's sketchesq which were merely rough instructions to his

clerk of works or local builder, who had previously erected a number

cottages on his (188). In the
of similar estate end Grantham gave
way, and by 1905 the cottages had been pulled down, but the damage was
done, not to Grantham but to the much maligned image of the rural
by-laws (189).

In 1907 a similar case almost occurred when the Duke of Northumberland

built some cottages adjacent to his fish hatchery at Barrasford. In
the process he fell foul of the by-laws at Hexham, but he stoutly

maintained that they were meant for urban areas only. The case was

reported in 'The Times', and the local Bench, consideking all the
"exceptional circumstances", dismissed the case (190). 'The Builder'
however thought that the case was similar to that of Salt v. Scott Hall

of 19031and implied that the dismissal of the case was in no small way
due to the "exalted position of the defendant" (191).

Finally, the case of King v. Holyhead U. D. C. 1908 raised a matter which

was always very close to the architects' prerogative design
of skill
and copyright. The Judge of the Divisional Court the King's Bench
of
decided in this case that it was legitimate for an authority to request
drawings of a buildings"elevations (192). The understanding originally

was to require elevational drawings simply to help the Council under-

stand the plans more easily, and similar requirements were included in

a number of local acts, such as those at Widness and Skegness for example.
Seen from the architectural arena, there were perhaps more sinister
implications. Belfast's proposal to require elevations showing the

height, character and design of the proposed and adjacent buildings

had raised objections from the local architects there in 1901 (193)p

and Royal Tunbridge Wells not only required elevations but, under its

by-laws of 1869, asked for and kept duplicate copies, refusing to

return them or to give any reasons for rejecting any scheme (194).

Presented with that attitude it was not unreasonable for all manner of

suspicions to be aroused in the architectural world.

The history of the Garden City movement, of the ideas of Ebeneezer

Howard, of Lever and Cadbury, Parker and Unwin, have been already
described by a numerous of other writers, and it is not intended to

repeat that history here. The German initiative has also been mentioned.
Given the more liberal and imaginative concepts of the garden city and
of the early town planning movementl their roots were partly embodied
in the history of the by-laws as well, but the inherent rigidity of
the by-laws soon led inevitably to a series of confrontations and an
erosion of the by-law monopoly. Street widths and open space were the

main areas of contention, closely followed by wall construction and

the aesthetic awareness inherent in the garden city of a vernacular
revival, the scale of which was obstructed by the by-law controls on
who
windows and room heights. Hampstead Garden Suburb Trust/Made one of
breakthroughs, (with its
the earliest own local act of 1906 controlling

street widths and the securing of modifications to the Hendon by-laws

allowed a number of architectural features to be realised, including

sound proof hollow party walls, half timber and tile hanging, over-
hang bays, lower ceiling heights, houses designed to 'turn corners' and
in the roof at any level (not just (195)-
rooms on the top floor)
Unwin recognised that the by-laws had done some good in preventing
overcrowding and bad building, but that they needed now to be operated

with a discretionary power from the local authority, and that their

474
range might have to be extended to include the planning of towns (196).

Propaganda from the Garden City Association of 1899 and the National

Housing Reform Council of 1900 also urged the Local Government Board

to revise its by-laws with regard to open space, lower housing

densities, sheets and new materials. In fact, the by-laws did not

extend in that direction., and entirely new powers were to come through

in the first town planning legislation which was linked with working

class housing.

The culmination was the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909 (197),

and this provided the first break through the monopolyof control vested
in the by-laws. At one level it allowed local authorities, in pre-
paring town planning schemes., to cover many of the matters often not
previously held under the by-laws - minimum room sizes, building lines,
density, height and character of buildings, numbers of rooms in a
house, shopping areas, public open space and areas of natural beauty;

and also some which by-laws had controlledl such as building on un-
suitable ground and the height of windows in habitable rooms, the

control of street widths and habitable cellars - the last being

directly under the Public Health Acts (198). Section 43 prohibited

at long last back-to-back houses - "not-withstanding anything in any

local act or by-law in force in any borough or district"., section
44 gave the Local Government Board the initiative to say whether or not
by-laws were impeding the construction of working class dwellings (199)?

and under section 55 (2) the local authority could suspend the by-laws

when it was preparing a town planning scheme.

Generally there was a new spirit abroad. The Incorporated Association

of Municipal and County Engineers heard Mr. Haynes in 1910 admit that

whilst the by-laws had prevented really bad work, they were inelasticl

had paid too much attention to detail and had "not got to the root of
the matter". This was still difficult for many local surveyors to

accepts many having spent a large part of their working life defending

and carrying out the strict letter of the by-law. "Co-operation" said
Mr. Haynes flis to be the future guiding principle of town development.
Can it be applied to the proper and intelligent codification of
building regulations and their subsequent administration? " (200)

In addition to the town planning movement, there this final

was at
period of our study, signs of an increasing demands from an advancing

building technology and, once again, concern over the building of

rural cottages.

School building, taking new ideas from the initiative of Staffordshire's

Medical Officer and the Derbyshire's education architect, was breaking

new ground., and provides one good example where new building techniques

were appearing. North Surrey District School at Annerley for example,

designed by Cecil Sharp in 1909,, had a steel frame and concrete slab

cladding and could only be allowed as a 'temporary building' under the

local by-laws (201). The Board of Education Committee Report', on the

cost of school building in 1911, unanimously agreed that schools should

be exempt from the by-laws, to give freedom for design, the use of new

materials and be subject only to the approval of the Board of Education.

There was91he Committee said, a need for experimentand the costs of

schools were increased by by-laws requiring "excessively strong walls

and floors and extravagent, construction", and they referred to the

experimental concrete work then being undertaken by the General Post

Office in London (202) (and see page SZ9). The need for by-laws to

control reinforced concrete was recognised., and although there was

nothing in the existing by-laws to actually prevent reinforced concrete,

there was-equally no recognition of a more scientific and determinate

control of such structures. The Institute of Municipal Engineers

attention to this (203) and the Concrete Institute expressed

called
the hope that the concrete regulations of the L. C. C. (see page 5213)

would be followed by all local authorities (204). Yet 'The Builder'

counselled caution - it was all still tvin its infancy", the economics

of reinforced concrete work in small building were uncertain and there

was, of course, a distinct lack of men trained in this work to act as

officials (205).
enforcing

The, rural cottage building problem had not been eased by the intro-

duction of the rural by-laws. The subject reached the distinguished

pages of 'The Architectural Review' in 1906 (206). -rhe Building Bye-

law Reform Association continued to meet - it was still drafting

amending bills in 1909 (207), but by 1912 the Association had been

absorbed into the British Constitutional Association. At its Týeetings

in 1913 the architectural Opposition to the by-laws, crippling the
fashionable return of the low traditional forms of the English
Vernacular, were championed by C. F. A. Voysey. He gave the by-laws no
mercy:
"Were the most cultured and trained architects appointed to frame them?
No! The chief in the beginning was a fireman, and a model document
was then supplied to the butchers and bakers and candlestick makers of
the provinces upon which to base their own regulations" (208).

He continued with an attack on the requirements for high ceilings, on

the total disregard for local climate, the requirements for large

window areas and "all the mistaken notions about height of rooms and
health". His solution was nothing less than the total abolition of
the by-laws., and the substitution of one qualified official who would
report to his local council whenever a proposed building was likely to
be dangerous to the life or liberty of others. If such a building
were to be shown to be causing injury, it would be a criminal offence
and the owner would be responsible. Such increased responsibility
th, e
would, he claimed, serve to elevate the status of the owner in/eyes

of the public (209).

Meanwhile, the Local Government Board, responding in part to these

pressures., issued another circular to all the local authorities on

29 August 1912 (210). In this they now referred to new methods of
construction - concrete, hollow walls and hollow blocks, timber and
steel frames., and acknowledged the possibility of road layouts being

on 'Garden City' lines. It asked the local authorities to review yet

again their by-laws, to ensure that they were not too stringent,
particularly in rural areasand recommended their rural and inter-
mediate models to the attention of the authorities, along with their

urban model (Table 21).

revised

Back in Parliament, the Bill proposed by Sir Arthur Boscawen in 1911

(211), when it reached the Committee stage in the Commons, revealed
that it was now proposed that local authorities could themselves

approach the Local Government Board to request a relaxation of the

by-laws,, if it was seen that they were impeding the construction of
working class dwellings, provided sufficient open space and ventilation
were still provided. This was because it had become clear that section
44 of the Housing and Town Planning Act of 1909, which only granted
such initiative to the Local Government Board the local
and not
authority, was not working as well as had been expected.

Boscawen's Bill had a long, difficult fruitless

and ultimately course

477
over the next three years. Burns, the President of the Local Govern-

ment Board at this critical time for these matters of local government,

planning and building, maintained a slow, retrogressive attitude which

not only retarded the pace of the town planning movement, but also

maintained the hold of the by-laws. He was particularly concerned at

possible increase in cost in administration (212), and would not agree

to any by-law exemptions being granted towards privately financed

schemegý even though the schemes for housing and other building by the

Boards of Education, Agriculture and the Office of Works could be so

exempted. The Bill reappeared in 1913 and again in 1914, still with

a proposal to exempt the private builderg providedthe Local Government

Board passed his plans, but this proposal was now refuted by Herbert

Samuel, President of the Local Government Board, on the grounds of its

complexity (213). The Government did not agree with the

administrative

promoters on the main proposals, the Bill collapsed, taking the by-law

exemption clause with it, and from the pieces, a Departmental Enquiry

was set up to enquire into the whole question of the building by-laws

(2111).

The Committee's task was "to consider the control at present exercised
in England and Wales over the erection of buildings and the construc-
tion of streets by means of by-laws and local regulations and their

effect on building and development and to make recommendations".

Whenever the Government reached an impasse on this difficult question

of by-laws, the escape route always seemed to be an official enquiry,

as we have seen so often in this history. The twelve man committee

included only one architect, Raymond Unwin. 'The Builder' was rightly

sceptical - surely more architectural representation was needed "to

consider the effect of the by-laws on architecture as a fine art"7(215)-

And so the building regulations, in the form of by-laws, were now at

their lowest ebb, thoroughly discredited on all sides. In Parliament

Herbert Samuels readily agreed that they were restrictive (216), the

sanitary world was calling for their reform on town planning lines
(217), the Reform Association, through Sir William Chance at the
British Constitutionywas still promoting Bills for their amendment
(218)., and the building and architectural worlds had reached what was
virtually a state of exhaustion (219). At this low point the whole
business was overtaken by events of far greater magnitudeand when it

478
re-surfaced after the Great War in 1918, a new world with very different

expectations awaited it -a world which belongs more to the living

memory and not to the pages of this history.

This chapter has focussed on the building by-laws themselves, on their

growth, their technical content and on their realisation in practice,

with examples selected from a range of provincial towns and from a

number of the cases coming before the courts.

The overall picture is one of gradual disintegration, not so much in

the content of the clauses as in their range of application. Paradox-

icallyg in an attempt to keep pace with an ever-widening sphere of

controls the almost desparate succession of rural, intermediate and

urban by-laws, as well as with new amendments to the acts, there is

no real unification. More and more piecemeal legislation is being

added to an already complicated collection of regulations. Why, really,

an amendment to the Public Health Act, passed in 1907, have

should

generated an isolated set of by-laws for factory engine chimney

(even if we accept that they were following the similar rules
shafts
in the London legislation of 1894), when the main powers for all

chimney construction were still embodied in the 1875 Public Health

Act and translated into the Model By-laws of 1877? And yet with all

these additional rules, there were still some alarming gaps in the

range of topics covered. The control of columns and beamsfor

example, was still absent, yet steel and concrete frame structures were

on the increase. The control of space about buildings was still only

for the free circulation of air - nothing for the benefit of daylight

and sunlight, at a time when these topics were assuming a new degree

of importance in the ideas of the'garden city'sponsors. Attempts by

the Local Government Board to maintain what little control it had were

proving less and less effective, as the response to the admonitions

and circulars to the local authorities showed. At the same time,

local authorities themselves, newly reformed and less corrupts were

becoming more efficient and accountable. They employed more experts

as their officials, and as authorities they grew in stature and importances

although the tension between central and local authority was still

apparent. In the face of this disintegration and disquiet

growing
over the whole business of by-laws, with questions being asked about
their effect on the larger issues of, housing and employment, it was

perhaps inevitable that there should have been cL departmental

committee enquiry established in 1914.

The problem of the rural by-laws served to highlight both these and a

number of other aspects which have a longer term significance. First

there was the influence of the R. I. B. A. with its predominantly London

based thinking. With the example of the 1891+ London Building Act to

its credit, it seems to have maintained its London attitude when it

came to proposing by-laws for the rural areas. Secondly. the problem

of the rural by-laws served to bring the whole matter of the building

by-laws out into full public discussion. The by-laws came under

attack in the press, supported by the respected authority of the 'landed

gentry'. It was also a time when there were embarrassing problems

in the more heavily charged political arena of housing and unemployment,

and to some extent the by-laws became a convenient scapegoat. Finally,

within the architectural arena, the rural by-laws brought about a

confrontation between architectural design and building regulation

which was almost inevitable. Architects were involved in a broader

of operationt and in particular were pursuing the revival of a

scale
style of architecture in a number of country houses. As the
vernacular

urban based by-laws were transposed out into the rural areas the

collision was inevitable. To men like Voysey, anticipating a wide

of creativity within the freedom of the vernacular style, the

range

of petty officialdom in the form of the restrictive by-laws

appearance

an unwelcome intrusion. The rise of the'garden city'concept and

was
the development of town planning'must be noted here also. It had
early
and picturesque origin, and it represented a new attitude towards
a rural
and positive form of social engineering. Planning
a more sophisticated
to be more for the long term benefits of society, whilst the
was
building by-laws were to languish as a purely negative device to

safeguard the public from danger. Furthermore, as it now seemed,

merely
the individual could not achieve these basic rights and standards for

himself, it was now being accepted that society as a whole, in the form

intervention, should provide those needs for him on his behalf.

of state
The acceptance of town planning was one sign of that new belief.

Within the general development of social history in England there were

a number of significant developments in this period which, whilst not
directly related to building regulation, form an important part of
their background. They all centre on the emergence of new concepts
in social welfare - various benefits in terms of health, housing and

education which would be not only for the benefit of the individual,

but also for the benefit of society as a whole. The 1880's had seen

the formation of much of this new attitude, and the practical effects
began to be felt around the turn of the century.

From the 1880's came the Fabian Society, with Shaw and Webbs and there

was William Morris's Socialist League - all concerned with the inequality

of the social structure and the distribution of wealth. From the

1880's too came the extension of the franchise to the country areas,
the reforms in local government, the enquiries into working class
housing, a new attitude towards public health in terms of the individual

as well as the environment, the beginnings of elementary education for

all and the continuation of the collection and unbiased analysis of

statistical evidence. It was all leading towards a more humane

attitude, a more vital social conscienceand the coming of the welfare

state. Charles Booth studied the life and labour in London; Seebohm

Rowntree produced a similar study for York, A rise in unemployment

presented fresh problems and there were ideas of labour exchange,

with examples like that of Canon Barnett for 'farm colonies' to

temporarily employ the urban unemployment. (And did not the rural
by-laws, as we have seen, stand in the way of temporary and simple

accommodation for the agricultural labourer? ) There was some support

for these ideas from Walter Long at the Local Government Board, and

there were further signs as Lloyd George's Liberal government came

into power in 1906. All this is part of a much wider subjectýýand it

is impracticable to stray too far into it in this Thesis. But it is

not impossible to see how the building by-laws were a part, admittedly

a very small partg of this much wider condition and attitude in

society. Yet the building by-laws were unfortunately trapped within

the tight framework established around them in the nineteenth century,
,
and they were unable to break out and to translate themselves into the

new role which the more enlightened and liberal attitude of the early
twentieth century demanded. It was town planning, unencumbered by the

heavy cloak of nineteenth century restrictive legislation, which

overtook and made progress beyond the by-laws.

481
To complete this history, we must now return to London and study the

very different pattern of development which occurred there between

1895 and 1914.

482
NOTES TO CHAPTER IX

i The term 'model by-law' is here used for both the official Model
By-laws issued by the Local Government Board and the unofficial
(though almost universally accepted) model by-laws which were
incorporated in the various editions of Knight's Annotated Model
By-laws. The two do not always coincide. For example W. A. Casson,
the barrister in the legal department of the Board, drafted a
model by-law for the height of habitable rooms which appeared in
the seventh edition of Knight in 1905, page 191. A clause on the
same subject did not however appear in the official Model By-laws
until 1912. Similarly, model clauses for roof and floor timbers
were not in the official model, but the architect to the Local
Government Board had drawn up a set which were published, un-
officially, in the same edition of Knight in 1905. By-laws were
therefore often quite legally made and approved long before they
were officially sanctioned by being incorporated in the Local
Government Board's official set.
2 Knight's Annotated Model By-laws, Seventh edition, 1905, p. 190.
3 Ibidq p. 192. This by-law was not always included by many local
authorities and, according to Knight's eight edition, p. 134 (1928)
it was not to be found in the official model. (as explained in note i
above).
4 Knight, OP-cit. 7th edition, 19059 P-193. There was however at
least one exception the the rule. Brighton, amending its by-laws
in 1898, stipulated that rooms in the roof should have the roof
closeboarded and a layer of felt laid above the rafters, under
the slating. B. Vol-74 No-2877 26 Mar 1898 P-307-
5 This was later confirmed. See 'Proceedings of the Incorporation,
of Municipal and County Engineers, Vol. XXVIII, 1901-1902, P-156.
6 Knigh% op. cit i 7th edition, 19051 P-193.
7 This point was a constant source of concern. In 1907 it was noted
that imported scantlings were not the same size as the by-laws
stipulated and the authorisation of variations would lead to delays
and to increased costs. A plea was made for some type of formula
which could be generally applied and which could be adapted to
-
iron and steel as well. B. Vol. 92 No-3342 23 Feb 1907 p. 224.
8 Knight, OP-cit- 7th edition, 1905, p. 202-3-
9 B. Vol. 62 No. 2560 27 Feb 1892 P-154 and Knight, op. cit-9
7th edition, 1905, p. 191.
10 Knight, op. cit., 8th edition, 19289 P-170-
11 B. Vol. 62 No. 2560 27 Feb 1892 P-154-
12 The Times,, 23 Sept. 1898 P-5 Col. f.
13 Ibid. 24 Sept 1898 p. 10 col. g.
14 Ibid. 21 Oct 1898 p. 8. col. f.
15 Ibid. 4 Oct 1898 P-13, Col. c.
16 Ibid . 18 Oct 1898 p. 14. col. c.
17 B. Vol-70 No. 2774 4 Apr 1896 p. 290.
18 The Times,, 17 Nov. 1898 P. 11 col. d.
19 Ibid.
20 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. VI, No 41 24 Dec 1898, P-105-
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid. P-107-
P-3 B. Vol-75 No. 2908 29. Oct 1898 P-377-
24 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. VI, No. 6,28 Jan 1899, p. 161.
25 The members of the Committee were: S. F. Clarkson, H. O.Cresswell,

483
E. G. Dawber, W.M. Fawcett, A. SFlower, W. Henmanq L. W. Ridge,
A. E. Sawdayq H. D. Searles-Wood, and Professor T. Roger Smith.
26 R. I. B. A. Journalq Vol VII No 6,28 Jan 18999 p. 162.
27 B-Vol-76 No. 2937 20 May 1899 p. 492.
28 Ibid. P-495o
29 R. I. BoAo Journalq Vol. VI, No. 15,17 June 1899, po449.
30 Ibid. P-450-3o
31 R. I. B. Ao Journalq Vol. VII, No 1,11 Nov 1899, p. 18o
32 As Lacy Ridge ýo_tedj but the subject kept alive. In
was still
June 1900 he gave a talk at the R. I. BoA. entitled 'The Responsib-
ility of Local Authorities in respect of Building By-laws1q
R. I. BoAo Journal, Vol VII, No 16,30 June 1900, p. 414o
33 R. IoB. Ao Journal, Vol, VIII, Noo6,26 Jan 19019 p. 123-
34 Ibid. p 128.
35 R. I. B. Ao Journal, Vol VIII9 No. 9,9 Mar 1901, p. 211.
36 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. VIII, No. 10,23 Mar 1901, p. 242-3.
37 HoVol-93 P-948.
38 H. Volo94 P-52.
39 H. Vol. 96 p. 989.
40 BoVol. 81 NO-3068 23 Nov 1901 P-457-
41 R. IoB. A. Journal-, Vol. IX, No. 2,23 Nov 1901, p. 40o
42 B. Vol-83 No-3100 5 July 1902 p. 8-10, E. D. Cecil to the Institute
of Sanitary Engineers' Congress at Buxton, 17 June 1902.
43 Ibid.
1+4 B. Voi. 81 NO-3069 30 Nov 1901, P-477-
45 R. IoBoA. Journal, VoloIX, No-3,7 Dec 1901, p. 68-70-
46 F. C. Cook - "Position of Local Authorities in regard to Building
By-laws". Proceedings of the Incorporated Association of Murkipal
and County Engineers, Vol. XXVIII, 1901-2, Po143-
47 Ibid.
48 B. Vol. 61 No-2549 12 Dec 1891 PA38 (Brownhills also ignored
controls on privies, ashpits and cesspools by not adopting all the
controlling powers given in the Public Health Act 1875 see
B. vol. 63 No. 2579 9 July 1892 P-27).
49 F. C. Cook, OP-citi P-152.
50 Ibido P-145.
51 Cardiff: lacked control over the connection between house drains
and the main sewers. B. Vol-711 No. 2788 11 July 1896.
Cambridge: "Notoriously behind the age in sanitary and con-
struction practicello Editor of 'The Builder' B. Vol-70 No. 2766.
8 Feb 1896 p. lo7.
Burnley: proposed to increase backyards from 120 to 150 sq ft
and to ban wooden walls in buildings B. Vol-71 No. 2803 24 Oct
1896 Po342.
52 B. Vol . 69 Noo2741 17 Aug 1895 P-125.
B, Vol. , 78 No. 2982 31 Mar iqOO P-327o
53
54 B, Vol-70 No-2763 18 Jan 1896 p. 61. There seems to have been
some reluctance in the South-West generally to the adoption of the
model by-law standards. Local builders at Paignton considered
them too stringent and pointed out that Plymouthq Exeter and
Teignmouth had not adopted them. The timber regulations wouldq
they estimated, add some 25% to the cost of building a house
B. Vol. 78 Noo2981.24 Mar 1900 po299.
55 B. Volo70 Noo2777 25 Apr 1896 P-369 (The example of the London
Building Act was not lost in the provinces. The builders at
Sleaford in Sussex were upset to find that they had to provide
1312" thick walls whereas their London counterparts could still
use 911 walls (in the 2nd and 3rd storeys of houses not over 30'0"
high) and petitioned the local b oard for a change to be made. It
was, they felt "ra ther hard on t he builders of Sleaford" B. Vol-71
No. 2812 26 Dec 18 9ý P-544).
56 B. Vol-71 No. 28o8 28 Nov 1896 P-456.
57 B. Vol-73 No.2841 17 July 1897 P-59-
58 B. Vol-72 No.28i4 9 Jan 1897 P-40.
59 B. Volo79 NO-3010 13 Oct 1900 P-326.
60 R. I. B. Ao Journal, Vol VII No 6, 28 Jan 1899, p. 163-
61 R. IoB._Ao Journal, VoloVIII No. 16,30 June 1900, p. 414.
62 B. Vol. 76 No.2932 15 Apr 1899 Po376 On this point, Sheffield
had what a Mr. Pott er told the local Society of Architects to be a
"privilege which favoured lower costs for working class houses" -
no requirement for party walls to project above the roof and also
two storeys plus a room in the roof were allowed which needed only
to have gtl externa l and party walls. B. Vol. 80 No-3024 19 Jan
19oi p. 62.
63 B. Vol. 63 No.2598 19 Nov 1892 P. 404o
64 B. Vol-71 No. 2795 29 Aug 1896 P-170-
65 B. Volo73 No. 2858 13 Nov 1897 P-407-
66 B. Vol-74 No. 2887 4 June 1898 P-552.
67 B. Volo78 No. 2470 7 June 1890 p. 412.
68 B. Volo7l No. 2803 24 Oct 1896 P-344.
69 B. Vol. 81 NO-3053 10 Aug 1901 P-143. (There was an earlier
similar case of Ri chardson v. Brown in Feb 1895)-
70 B. Vol. 68 No. 2730 1 June 1895 P-413-
71 B. Vol. 60 No. 2519 16 May 1891 Po399-
72 B. Vol-79 No-3017 i Dec 1900 p. 497-
73 B. Vol. 65 No. 2672 21 Apr 1894L P-315.
74 B. Vol. 65 No.2645 14 Oct 1893 p. 289.
75 B-Vol-71 No. 2789 18 July 1896 p. 63-
76 B-Vol-75 No. 2898 20 Aug 1898 P-178-
77 B. vol. 67 No. 2694 22 Sept 1894 p. 212.
78 B. Vol-77 No. 2945 15 July 1899 p. 69o
79 The Times, 21 Nov 1898 p. 14 col. d.
80 B. Volo62 Noo2573 28 May 1892 p. 425 and The Lancetl 21 May 1892.
81 B. Vol-75 No. 2910 12 Nov 1898 P-436.
82 B. Vol-77 No. 2943 1 July 1899 p. 18-19. plan below refers:
/
/GRANBY HOMELýý'IA 14OTF-L. VARD

FRCN-r ST!
go, 011 WIC)s

L-4LI
yAlto

'Fitoper cmx, >r. L-* *us&

siop- -wntmwv woe

83 B. Vol. 68 No-2709 5 Jan 1895 P-5 and B. Vol. 68 No-2710 12 Jan

1895 P-30. (There was a precedent for this ruling in the case
Shiel Mayor and Corporation Sunderland2 1861 (6 Hurlstone
of v. of
and Norman 796). Under section 159 of the Public Health Act 1875.
It was determined that an addition to an old building was not a
new building within the meaning of the See also Chapter
section.
V, note 22).
84 B. Vol. 68 No. 271l 19 Jan 1895 p. 40 and B. Vol. 68 No. 2714
9 Feb 1895 P-109-
85 B. Vol. 68 No. 2713 2 Feb 1895 p. 88.
86 B. Vol. 68 No. 2715 16 Feb 1895 p. 128.
87 B. Vol. 68 No. 2712 26 Jan 1895 p. 68.
88 Ibid.
89 H. Vol. 114 13 Nov 1902 P-872.
go B. Vol. 84 NO-3142 25 Apr 1903 P-439-
91 B. Vol. 87 No-3225 26 Nov 1904 P-539-
92 B. Vol. 87 No-3218 8 Oct 1904 p. 360.
93 The Times, 11 Dee 1902 P-13 col. e. (The Editor of 'The Builder'
suggested that they first reform their own spelling, returning to
'by-law' rather than 'bye-law' B. Vol. 84 No-3151 27 June 1903-
p. 662.
94 B. Vol. 84 No. 3132 14 Feb 1903 P-176.
95 B. Vol. 84 No. 3146 23 May 1903 P-544; B. Vol. 84 No-3151 27 June
1903 p. 662; B. Vol-85 No-3152 4 July 1903 p. 19 and The Times,
29 June 1903 p. 16 col. c.
96 B. Vol. 86 No-3187 5 Mar 1904 p. 250-1.
97 W-Henman, "A Plea for reform of the Principle in which Building
By-laws are founded, " Pamphlet. Dec 1904. (originally published in
'British Architect? )
98 The Times, 9 Sept 1905 p. 14, col. d.
99 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XII, No. 4,24 Dec 1904 P-132.
100 The Times, 9 Sept 1905 p. 14 cold.
101 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XIIj No. 4,24 Dec. 1904, p. 120. Lacy's view
of the London Building Act was rather extreme, although the
amending bills of 1902-3, following the Queen Victoria St. fire,
were panic measures.
102 Ibid.
103 H. Vol. 141 23 Feb 1905 P-1076 and P. P. 1905 272 and LXVII P-373: -
out of 668 rural district councils, 246 had no regulations for new
buildings9 in parts of 114 there were by-laws based on the urban model.
In 106 districts and parts of 32 there were by-laws based on the
rural model. In 11 districts and parts of 6, the by-laws were not on
any model code and were made before 1877. No information appears
to have been available for the remainder.
see also Local Government Board : 35th Annual Rep P. P. igo6,
Vol. XXXV, p. lxix.
104 H. Vol-143 27 Mar 1905 p. 1196.
105 H. Vol-143 30 Mar 1905 P-1720.
106 The Times 31 July 1905, P-7- col. d.
107 H. Vol-150 27 July 1905 P-586.
108 H. Vol. 146 11 May 1905 p. 12.
109 A. R. Stenning,. "Urban and Rural By-laws and Suggested Amendments"
at the Surveyor's Institution, 16 Jan 1905. (He called for one
set of by-laws for the whole country, the ending of the deposition
of plans, which was not required in London, the need for properly
trained surveyors and a Tribunal of Appeal. )
B. Vol. 88 No-3233 21 Jan 1905 P. 60.
Also see WoMensies, "Building By-laws in Rural Districts" given at
the same meeting of the Surveyor's Institution. B. Vol. 88 No-3233
21 Jan 1905, p. 61; No 3235 4 Feb 1905 p. 119 and The Times,
17 Jan 1905 p. 6. col. c.
110 The Times, 21 Jan 1905.
ill W. Blunt, "By-law Tyranny and Rural Depopulation" Nineteenth Century,
Vol-561 p. 643. also referred to in B. Vol-87 No-3219 15 Oct
1904 P-387-
112 H. Vol. 146 11 May 1905, P-15-16.
113 H. Vol. 149 20 July 1905 P-1343. The main complaint was the
requirement for walls to be of brick or stone, thereby ruling out
timber. But according to the Assistant Secretary of the Local
Government Board, wood was not that much cheaper than brick, it
cost more to maintain, and in 14 parishes near Guildford which
did not have any by-laws, no one had seen fit to build any
cottages in wood.
B. Vol. 89 No-3278 2 Dec 1905 P-577 (The Editor of The Builder,
H. H. Statham, was also cautious about wood. He considered it cold,
not durable, suitable only for weekend cottages and preferred
brick, concrete of brick with roughcast, although he was against
cavity walls since they could be full of unknown vermin)
114 B. Vol. 88 No-3237 18 Feb 1905 P-178.
115 B. Vol. 89 NO-3278 2 Dec 1905 P-578.
116 The Times, 9 Sept 1905 p. 14. col. d.
117 B. Vol. 88 No-3235 4 Feb 1905 p. 120-1 and No-3236 11 Feb 1905,
P-154-
118 B. Vol. 90 No. 3292 10 Mar 1906 p. 261.
119 Proceedings of the Incorporated Association of Municipal and County
Engineers, (Norwich June 22-24 1905) Vol-XXXI, 1904-51 p. 296.
120 Ibid. P-302
12l B. Vol. 89 No. 3278 2 Dec 1905 P-578.
122 R. M. Lucas., "Anti Building By-laws. Suggestions for Reform",
pamphlet. 1905 (based on articles originally published in the
Southampton Observer and Hampshire News)
123 Letter from Mr. I. Dixonj Manchester. The Times, 25 Aug 1905, col. d.
124 B. Vol. 88 No-3261 5 Aug 1905 -
p. 161.
125 B. Vol. 89 No-3270 7 Oct 1905 P-362-4 and also "Proceedings of
the Incorporated Association of Municipal and County Engineers",
Vol-XXXIi 1904-59 p. 281-322.
126 The Times, 6 Jan 1906 p. 11 col. a. and R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XIIII
No-5.13 Jan 1906, P-131.
127 H. Vol-154 22 Mar 19o6 P-518-532 Public Health Act Amendment Bill
P. P. iqo6, iv, p. 699; also Local Government Board : 36th Annual
Reportj P-P-1907, Vol-XXVI, P. Ixix.
128 H-Vol-154 22 Mar 19o6 P-524.
129 L. W. Ridge, who supported the Bill, in addressing the R. I. B. A-
said "I am afraid it will wait for many months the attention of the
House of Commons".
R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XIV, No-3,8 Dec 1906, p. 89-90 and also
B. Vol. 106 No-3720 22 May 1914 p. 605.
130 B. Vol. 87 No. 2220 22 Oct 1904 p. 11241.
131 B. Vol. 88 No-3253 June 1905 P-637-
.ý10
132 B. Vol. 87 No-3218 8 Oct 1904 P-373.
133 B. Vol. 83 NO-3089 19 Apr 1902 P-397 A. S. Parker to the Devon
and Exeter Architectural Society.
134 Ibid.
135 B. Vol-93 No-3337 26 Oct 1907 P-451.
136 B. Vol. 82 No-3089 19 Apr 1902 P-397-
137 2-Edw. VII cap. 240.
138 B. Vol. 84 NO-3130 31 Jan 1903 P-117. This was also partly to
avoid having to pay compensation for any later road widening.
139 B. Vol. 94 No-3398 21 Mar 1908 P-345.
140 B. Vol. 96 NO-3459 22 May 1909 p. 625.
141 B. Vol. 94 No. 3412 27 June 1908 P-755.
142 B. Vol-87 No-3209 6 Aug 19o4 p. 146.
143 B. Vol-97 No-3487 4 Dec 1909 p. 624.
144 B. Vol-87 No. 3210 13 Aug 1904 p. 187.
145 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XX, No-3,7 Dee 1912, p. 94.
146 B. Vol. 91 No-3334 29 Dec 1906 P-753-
147 B. Vol. 83 NO-3119 15 Nov. 1902 P-455-
148 B. Vol. 82 No-3o8o 15 Feb 1902 p. 165-
149 B. Vol. 92 No. 3335 5 Jan 1907 p. 20.
150 B. Vol. 92 NO-3337 19 Jan 1907 P-70.
151 B. Vol. 92 No-3342 23 Feb 1907 p. 233-
152 B. Vol. 94 NO-3398 21 Mar 1908 P-345.
153 B. Vol. 92 NO-3o8o 15 Feb 1902 p. 165-
154 B. Vol. 91 No-3309 7 July 1906 p. 22. (Levenshulme also proposed
400 sq. ft. for the space about buildings, a handrail and ventilation
for stairs, all as at Manchester, but added, rather unusually, a
control on the pitch of the stair at 450)
The Times, 25 Aug 1905, P-5, col. d. )
155 B. Vol. 94 NO-3405 9 May 1908 P-553)
156 B. Vol. 96 No-3459 22 May 1909 p. 625. The areas proposed were
Living Room = 120 sq. ft, main bedroom = 120 sq. ft., other bedrooms
80 sqoft.
157 B. Vol. 104 No-3649 10 Jan 1913, P-55.
158 For example, local acts regulating room sizes (inter alia)t passed
before 1914 and still valid in 1967 include the Corporation Acts
of: -
Newcastle upon Tyne 1892; Wigan 18931 Morley 1900; York 1902;
Gateshead 1903; Hull 1903; Widnes 1908; Heywood 1909; Southampton
1910; Middleton 1910; Gloucester 1911; St Helens 191l; Luton 1911;
Halifax 1911; Northampton 1911; Swansea 1912; Southport 1913; and
West Bromwich 1913.
Source: R. I. B. A. Journal, August 19679 P-355-6.
(The author personally experienced the persistence of these
regulations when employed by Northampton Development Corporation.
The Northampton Corporation Act 1911 Section 65(2) set a minimum room
size which was slightly larger than the minimum provided in a
system built housel but a house which still complied overall with
the minimum areas of the Parker Morris standards for M. O. H. L. G.
approval and subsidy. The'system built house was itself con-
strained'by a dimensional control which related to the component
elements. of the system).
159 R. I. B. A. Journal, August 1967, P-355-6.
160 B. Vol-94 No-338ý 11 Jan 1908 P-51.
161 Private Bill 1909. B. Vol. 96 NO-3459 22 May 1909, p. 625-
162 Local Act 1908. B. Vol. 94 No-3405 9 May 1908 P-553.
163 Local Act 1908 B. Vol. 94 No-3407 23 May 1908 p. 612.
164 B. Vol-85 No-3177 26 Dec 1903 p. 676.
165 B. Vol-79 No-3000 4 Aug 1900, p. 100.
166 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XI, No 13,7 May 1904, P-355-
167 Local Governme7t Board : 32nd Annual Report, P-P-1903, Vol-XXIXi
p. clxix - Penge had been separated from the County of London under
the London Government Act of 1899.
168 B. Vol. 89 No-3277 25 Nov 1905 P-569.
169 B. Vol. 88 No-3239 4 Mar 1905 p. 246.
170 B. Vol. 84 No-3130 31 Jan 1903 P-117.
171 B. Vol. 83 No. 3112 27 Sept 1902 p. 277-
172 B. Vol. 84 No-3142 25 Apr 1903 P-439-440 and B. Vol. 83 No-3120
22 Nov 1902 P-474-5.
173 B. Vol. 83 No-3112 27 Sept 1902 p. 277.
174 Ibid.
V5 B. Vol. 84 NO-3130 31 Jan 1903 p. 118 and Local Government Board
32nd Annual Report P-P- 1903, Vol-XXIV P-clxx-
176 Local Government Board : 36th Annual Report, P-P-19079 Vol-XXVI9
p. lxxii.
177 B. Vol-93 NO-3376 19 Oct 1907 p. 408.
178 8 Edw. VII cap. 821.
179 B. Vol-93 No-3386 28 Dec 1907 P-703.
180 B. Vol-83 No-3119 15 Nov 1902 P-451 and No-3122 6 Dec 19022 P-531-
181 B. Vol. 83 NO-3120 22 Nov 1902 P-475-
182 B. Vol. 85 No-3153 11 July 1903 P-53-
183 B. Vol. 85 No-3159 22 Aug 1903 p. 198 and No-3160 29 Aug 1903 p. 231.
(for Salt V. Scott Hall 1903 see 67 J-P- 306 and B. Vol. 105 No-3685
19 Sept 1913 p. 299. )
184 B. Vol-87 No-3225 26 Nov 1904 P-556.
185 B. Vol-87 NO-3229 24 Dec 1904 p. 674-
186 B. Vol. 87 NO-3230 31 Dec 1904 p. 686.
187 R. I. B. A. Journal Vol, XII, No. 49 24 Dec 1904, p. 119.
188 B. Vol. 88 No-3237 18 Feb 1905 P-187
189 Referred to in a review of "How to Build or Buy a Country Cottage
and fit it up" by 'Home CountiesIg London 1905 in B. Vol. 89 No-326o
29 July 1905 P-130-
190 The Times, 3 Feb 1909 p. 6. col. c. and B. Vol. 96 No-3446 20 Feb
1909 p. 225.
191 B. Vol. 96 No-3448 6 Mar 1909 p. 284.
192 B-Vol. 94 NO-3387 4 Jan 1908 p. 26.
193 B. Vol. 81 No-3073 28 Dec 1901 P-587-
194 B. Vol-79 No-3000 4 Aug 1900 p. 110.
195 The Hampstead Act (6 Edw. VII c192) of 1906 set a density of an
average of 8 houses per acre, 501011 between opposite houses,
allowed by-laws to be made for gardens, recreation grounds and open
space and it modified the local street by-laws.
196 R. Unwin, "Town Planning in Practice", London, 1909, P-319-355; 386-
403.
197 9 Edw. VII cap. 44.
198 No cellar to be used as a separate dwelling if the floor more than
31011 below the ground, unless the average height was 71011 and
unless it had proper lighting, ventilation and precautions against
damp penetration.
199 For example, Gateshead by-laws required 1312" min. wall thickness
(which was reasonable in such an exposed coastal position). The
local builders asked for a change to be made to 9112 including a
cavity - but the local authority would not agree, although they
would allow a cavity in the 13-21" wall.
Source: questions 31,32, Minutes of Evidence. Departmental
Committee on Building Bye-laws, 1918
200 B. Vol. 98 No-3515 18 June 1910 p. 686.
201 B. Vol. 96 No-3461 5 June 1909 p. 673.
202 R. I. B. A Journal, Vol. XVIII, No. 11, I Apr 1911, P-385. This was con-
firmed by section 3 of the Education (Administrative Provisions)
Act 1911. Schools, approved by the Board of Education, were to be
exempt from local by-laws. ('The Builder' also suggested that
hospitals should also be exempt. B. Vol. 106 No-3720 22 May
1914 p. 6o5).
203 B. Vol. 103 NO-3637 18 Oct 1912 P-447.
204 B. vol. io6 No-3707 . 20 Feb 1914 p. 235. (P. M. Fraser "Factory
.
Construction")
205 B. Vol. 105 No-368o 15 Aug 1913 p. 161-2.

489
206 A. F. Topham, "Building By-laws in Rural Districts' Architectural
Review, Vol. XIX, No. 112, March 1906, p. 109.
207 B. Vol. 96 NO-3460 29 May 1909 p. 656 and The Times 28 May 1909
P-7 col. e.
208 B. Vol. 104 No-3655 21 Feb 1913, p. 239.
209 Ibid. see also: R. H. Harper "The conflict between English building
regulations and architectural design 1890-191811 Journal of
Architectural Research, Vol 6, No. 1 March 1977, p. 24.
210 B. Vol-103 No-3631 6 Sept 1912 p. 285-
211 Bill to amend the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890, and the
Small Dwellings Acquisition Act 1899.
212 B. Vol. 102 No-3618 7 June 1912 p. 670-1-
213 H. Vol. 20 March 1914 p. 2465 (and also Departmental Committee on
Building Bye-laws Report, 1918, P-36.
214 Ibid, p. 2469.
215 B. Vol. 106 NO-3718 8 May 1914 P-549 and R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XXI,
No. 13,9 May 1914, p. 444.
Membership was : A. E. Collins, E. J. Gowen, F. R. Harding Newman,
W. T. Postlethwaite, R-Unwinj H. Vivian, W. Jerred*9 H. Lewis* (Chairman),
R. Baker*, E. Fiennes, Mr Hiley*, Mr Pointer*, S. Walsh@t A. G. Boscawen@,
D. Davies@, W. E. Hart@j A. N. C. Shelley (Secretary).
P*= later resigned due to the War. @= later appointments.
216 H. Vol. 63 18 June 1914 P-1338.
217 B. Vol-107 No-3729 24 July 1914, p. 96.
218 B. Vol. 106 No-3701 9 Jan 1914 p. 46; P. P. 1914, V. p. 609; B. Vol. 106
No-3721 29 May 1914 p. 642.
219 B. Vol. 106 No-3723 12 June 1914, p. 696. The Editor wrote that
amidst the housing and land reform proposals of the political
parties "someone in authority is conscious of the bedrock weakness
of existing conditions". Since 1875, when control was over the
quality of the individual building "we have come to understand that
not only is it necessary to control each building but there must
be some control over the grouping of buildings. This, the
science of town planning, was unknown when our code of by-laws
was originated1t.
MODEL BY-LAWS MADE 1890-1905 TABLE 16
following the powers contained in the Public Health Sheet I
(Amendment) Act 1890
Source: Knight's Annotated Model By-laws, ' Seventh
Edition, 1906
Editor: W. A. Casson (Barrister at Law, to the
Local Government Board)
Reference in text : Page : 441
NOTE: All except clause No 3, were not in the L. G. B. official Model,
but were accepted by them as valid.

CLAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to LINKS

No. building design and construction ANTE POST

STREETS
3 A secondary street to be provided, T1O. c6 T21-C7
connecting with the principal
approach street (for the removal of
house refuse, etc. )

STRUCTURE
5 Hearths: of stone, slate, brick, T6. c2O T14. c64
tile or other incombustible and
material. Size 611 longer than the T7-cII
width of chimney opening, pro-
jecting 1811 min. from chimney breast.
To be on stone or iron bearers, or
brick trimmer arch, or brick, stone
or other incombustible substance,
7" min deep below surface of hearth.
(on lowest storey, hearth may be
bedded on solid ground).
6 Roofs: rafters and purlins (Liverpool
-
scantling sizes see Table 16, Act 1882 a
sheet 4. and earlier
(domestic Liverpool
7 Floors: beams and joists
acts)
and warehouse) scantling sizes,
Table 16, sheet 4.
Floor trimmers and trimming joists
a) Domestic -
Trimmer joistq to take a max. of 6
common joists, and to be It' thicker
than a common joist of the same span.
Trimming joistq to receive a
trimmer at not more than 3'0" from
one end, to be 111 thicker than a
common joist of the same span.
b) Warehouses:
as above, but thickness of trimmer
to be III than common
greater still valid
joist of same span and thickness in 1914
of trimming joist to be 1-111
2 greater
than common joist of same span.
c) Public Buildings :
as for domestic, but joist spacing
TABLE 16
Sheet 3

treads = 1" thick min,

'risers ill if
=
2. treads = 811 depth; risers
911 height.
3 handrail required.
.
f) floor of habitable room over T14-C70
stables: 3" min concrete plug-
ging required between joists.

VENTIIATION
4 Height of habitable rooms:
1. not a sleeping room = 91011 T7-ci5 T11+-c70
min.
2. sleeping room, not in attic
81011or 81611(*) min.
3- sleeping room in attic or roof,
81011or 816" (*) min. over at
least 2/3rd of floor area and
never less than 5'011 in height.
recommendations of Local
Government Board.

DRAINAGE
W. C. to be kept (T17-c24)
10 supplied with
sufficient water.

11 Yards and open space in connection

with dwelling houses to be paved.
No habitable room or workplace to
be built over a privy, cesspool or
ashpit.

NOTE: Sec-23(2) of Public Health

Act Amendment Act 1890 enacted
that by-laws for drainage and san-
itation could be made so as to
affect buildings erected before
1875- Model series IVb were
issued to cover this
1) no plans or sections had to be
submitted, as was the case for
new buildings.
2) 'These by-laws could not actually
require drains for an old building ,
they could only prescribe how such
drains should be constructed when
it had been found necessary to
put them in.
These by-laws were therefore not
stringent - according to Knight
(Eighth edition 1928, page 215) this
was because they might otherwise
deter an owner from inserting drains
himself!
ROOF AND FLOOR TIMBER SIZES (OVERLAY) TABLE 16
Liverpool Building Act Amendment Acts 1835 and 1839 Sheet 4a
and Liverpool Building Act 1842

;z- 17

17 -! i 17-

0 1:1.217
+70
_:
00 PAZ-
7-m
-4;
C3

1:3 0 1:3 C3
! C3:ýIz-
C3
ýý
. ýZ-

C1.47,
ROOF AND FLOOR TIMBER SIZES TABLE 16
Made after passing of Public Health Amendment Act 1890 Sheet 4

xto c cc

13
Cý
CC r=
s
4) - au wF
Z C" C2 V)

'A 'Ln c
=C
,- ul
=; 0
-r
ts
CL)
.It Cý
Q3
VW =%wE; _ *
IL)

mE C37 E :3ýP c - 0.3

LLJ, 1ý ý 0. a
Ca ým 31 0
C-i

CN

cn

LLý boo.

E3 r7
.. 17
t
rp E
0 ý

J" - -
. Cc

C3 Cl
I
:: *ý040 CL
ý2 .= 4
x
to z
-r4
.A-- .-- Z- - - - 1 Ln
! I*-
0
C)
CC3
L, 'i
0

! 1
. -q -. = -j l - 1 Ot
.
Coc B:: 44
CL)
L3
s
V,
C02
C3 t --ý
. e ;x
L I
CD C3.
CC cu Ez
u U
!a -0.5- cn t: 3 C3 C 0 1
I I

-- 1
4 - 44-1
N

- 1
; ROOF IFJMk f MI)EA §lZg§ (OVERLAY) TAU= if, 6
IAN
ýP
ýLiverpqqlr EýAjjgjpq 6ftpdjq! rVdmgLihj4TjtAmt4ymeW0 AlA 3cA890 '911e*4t
44
and Liverpool Building Act 1842

Cm Cn C4
A*
0
a 11,15
CC r=

64. to
z CI M
06

UQ-'
z, ý* C
Jr, to C z; -2 W
C2 %
-2 m iý 0. r- to Ca= Q
10 1

%J

1 1
- 17 [4
Cm
1
t
-
W.

---= - .

lit
cm LA.

W.

E3'
01
E3,

41.

UZ

an

C2
RURAL MODEL BUILDING BY-LAWS 1901 (revised 1903) TABLE 17
Sheet 1
Reference : The Builder Vol. 81, No-3069 30 Nov 1901
P-477-8 and Knight's Annotated Model By-laws
7th edition 1905. p. 227-235
Reference in text : page : 4SO.

CLAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

No. design and construction ANTE POST

STRUCTURE
Site to be covered 611 T8. c1O
3 with concrete -
thick "wherever the dampness of the
site or the nature of the soil renders
such a precaution necessary".
4 D. p. c. - beneath level of lowest floort T8-c17
in public building or dwelling house, and
611 above ground level. Walls to rooms T9-c17 T21. c2O
below ground level - to be impervious
and to have cavity 212'1 widet from base
to height of at least 611 above ground,
with suitable wall ties, and with d. p. c.
at base and at 611 above ground level.

5 Top of parapets to be properly coped. T8. c27

SPACE ABOUT BUILDINGS FOR VENTILATION

6 Open space at front - as 1877 Model By- T8-c53
laws (and alsot if street less than
2410" wide, the front of the building
must be set back at least 121011 from
centre of street).
Open space at 1877 Model By- T8. c54
7 rear - as
laws.
8-12 Ventilation as 1877 Model
- By-laws. T8-c55
(but modified as follows: - to c59
cl. 11 area of ventilator = 50 sq, in.
cl. 10 size of window openings to apply
to new domestic buildings only.

DRAINAGE
13 & Drains, pipes, vents9 traps - as 1877 T8. c60
15-18 Model By-law. to 65 inc

14 Rainwater to be carried away from roof

by downpipe so as not to make found- t
ations damp. T5-C74
and
T10-52a
19 Waste pipes from slop sinks now to be T8. c66 T21. c66
& treated as soil pipes. Soil pipes to
20 be 31211 dia. min.
Length of channel from trapped waste
pipe tck trapped gulley not now stated.
21 W. C. - windows not required for w. c. T8. c67 T21. c6g
23 which is not within building, but and 68
opening needed for ventilation and
light. I
TABLE 17
Sheet 2

24 occupier of premises to be responsible T16. c1O T21. c69

for supply of sufficient quantity of
for flushing w. c. (and no need
water
for flushing cistern as in cl. 69 of
the 1877 model).
25 Earth closets and privies now to have T8-c7O T21-C75
32 similar construction and to be 101011 to 79 inc.
from habitable building. Size of
receptacle increased from 8 to 12 cu. ft.
otherwise as 1877 Model By-laws.

31 Ashpits, now 101011 from habitable T8. c8O T21. c82

38 building and a cubic capacity of 20 cu. ft. to 85 inc
to take one month's refuse, rather than
one week as before.
Otherwise as 1877 Model By-laws.
39 - Cesspools - as 1877 Model By-laws. T8. c86 T21. c89
42 to 89 inc.
43 - Closing of buildings unfit for T8. c9O
44 on habitation, deposit of plans, notices, to 99 inc.
penalties.
GENERAL
I Interpretation - as 1877 Model By-laws. T8. cl
2 Exemptions - as 1877 Model By-laws, but T8. c2 T21. c2
now excludes also buildings which are
not public or warehouse class or
dwelling houses i. e. plant houses,
orchard houses, summerhouses, poultry
house, tool houses - all unrestrictedg
but pigstyes and cowsheds not exempt
unless detached from house.

Notes
Laying out and construction of streets,
and materials for building not in by-
laws.
The drainage matters under clauses 21-
43 are not required to be constructed,
the by-laws only regulate their con-
struction when they are provided.

496
MODEL BUILDING BY-LAWS 1904 TABLE 18
Amendments to urban model Sheet 1

Source : Knight's Annotated Model Py-laws 7th Edition 1905.

Edited by W. A. Casson
Reference in text : page : 459

CLAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

No. design ANTE POST
and construction

STREETS
Entrance to new streets T8. c8 T21. c9
8 - one end at
least to be open from ground upwards
to full width of street (allows cul-
de-sac and prevents the placing of posts
at both endsof a street).

9 Sewerage of streets - provision for new

carrying off surface water.

STRUCTURE
Site 611 thick or T8. ciO T21. c11
11 concrete or asphalte,
411 thick if properly grouted on upper
surface and floated over into a
smooth cement surface.

Low lying (as T9. c1O T21-C13

13 and excavated sites
Knight 1883).
14 Hollow walls cavity width 2-111. TiO. c11 T21. cl4k
- ` 2
Half timber walls, ýnot over 3 storey, T9. c11A

not less than 151011 from other

building, not less than 611 above
ground level, inside plaster backing
and on good brick or stone base.
Also, in blocks 4 houses, if T21. c14
of party
wall carried out to external face, and
brickwork between timbers, 4-2111brick T19. civ
behind timbers (except plaster back
allowed in one storey building or in
top most storeyý
Tile hung external walls on buildings
complying with dimensional require-
ments as above, and for 2 storey work
also - on framework of timber, iron
or steel.
Timber in party walls laths and
34 -
slate battens in good cement , may
across top of party T21. cj4
now extend wall;
joists, etc. can extend to centre of
party wall if surrounded by 411 min.
brick, or in an iron box with a solid
back.
(@) T21-c36
36 Chimneys - can now be on metal girder(@)
or corbels2 ifiit does not project more T14. c64
than the thickness of the wall
immediately below the corbel (allows
chimneys to start above ground floor
-level, and was useful for shops).

497
TABLE 18
Sheet 2

37 Pargetting - unless a flue lining of T8-c37 T21-c37

less than if'
fireclay or stoneware not
thick.

47 Timber distance from of T14. c64 T21. c47

- away surface
hearth now 1011, not 1511 as before.

SPACE ABOUT BUILDINGS FOR VENTILATION

T1O. c54A T21-c53
53 Building on hillsides - re-erection of
building on same site - owner can re-
build with same area of open space as
previously existed.

55 Ventilation ofspace beneath lowest T1O. c56A

(if
floor = 3" concrete or asphalte
covering), 911 if not.
Airbricks required.

56 Now includes bathroom, lavatory,

(which may or may not be new
scullery
habitable room) to have one, window to
external air.

56B Ventilation of principal staircase in

building with separate tenements by T14. c69
-
windows at every storey or skylight
to external air. Hand rail required
for staircase.

DRAINAGE
61A Sewerage not to discharge into surface new
water sewers and/or surface water not
to discharge into sewerage sewers.

65 One vent pipe now required for drains

as near as possible to building - can
be the soil pipe (but not for drain
under 30'0" long and not having internal
communication with a building except for
a w. c. only entered from external air).

66 soil pipe = 312" int. dia.

66A (duplicate drains).

67A position of w. c. or e. c. in house.

67B traps. T23-C17

antisyphonage
67C trough for schools, etc, (but T! O. c66
closets,
by-laws rarely made in practice for
these).

69 Water to w. c. to be distinct from T13-c39 T21-c7O

supply
that to domestic service pipe.
69A Automatic slopwater closets - to super-
sede privies, (but not later enforced
since considered objectionable by
Ministry of Health in 1925).

498
TABLE 18
Sheet 3

GENERAL
2 Exemption of schools from by-laws, see
text page 476.

3 Exemptions:
"a building intended to be
erected in a T21. c2
solid and substantial manner and intended
and adapted solely for the housing of a
bicycle or tricycle - walls of galvanised
corrugated iron or sheet iron, not over
61011 high and not over 250 cu-ft.

5 Wooden buildings on brick foundations Tig. sl.

-
Agricultural sheds, not within 81011 of
street or 30'0" from nearest non
exempted building. Not over 125,000 cu. ft,
not over 30'011 high. If over 30'011 high
and over 125,000 cu. ft, to be 30'0" from
street and 60,011 from nearest building,
Garden sheds also exempt if not close to
other buildings.

98A House to be certified fit before being

occupied. (Based on case of 4-. by-law to
this effect being held to be reasonable
but rarely put into operation. Horsell
v. Swindon Local Board 52. J-P. 597).

499
INTERMEDIATE MODEL BUILDING BY-LAWS 1905 TABLE 19
Sheet 1
Reference in text page : 44S

CLAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

design and construction ANTE POST

GENERAL
Interpretation and exemption clauses, T8 and T18
all as for the urban model.

STREETS
as for urban model.

STRUCTURE
as for urban model, except:
i) clauses governing all classes of
building in the urban model are
confined to public and domestic still
(NOT warehouses) in Intermediate. valid
ii) Requirement for concrete or in
asphalte covering of site restricted 1914
to only those sites where dampness or
nature of soil renders this necessary
iii) "walls to be true and plumb" clause
omitted in this series.
iv) external and party walls = 8-111 thick
miM except 1.
(T12. c2a) see also
cement concrete or reinforced con-
to be of such thickness to T26. si.
crete,
ensure stability, or a wall of a new
building, entered only from the out-
side, if wall is not over 91011 high
by 1010" long then wall may be 41t
-
thick or external wall of a timber,
iron or steel frame, with a slate or T18. c14
tile covering (a simplification of
the similar controls under the urban*
model by-laws).
No controls for cross walls in this
series.
V) Wooden and other buildings. T18. c5
Building, not over 2 storeys, not
over 18,000 cu. ft., with good
material for external wall, brick
or brick piers to height of not
less than 611 above ground, not less still
than 401011 from opposite side of valid
street, and 15'0" min. from other in
buildings (101011 if they are of in- 1914
combustible material), not more than
4 buildings in a block with proper
party walls. If more than 2
buildings in block, their external
walls to be of incombustible
material.
Note: this clause was particularly

500
TABLE 19
Sheet 2

useful for timber and other patented wall

systems and was transferred to the urban
model after 1918.

SPACE ABOUT BUILDINGS FOR VENTILATION

as for urban model. T8 & T18

DRAINAGE
as for urban model.

501
MODEL BY-LAWS MADE UNDER PUBLIC HEALTH ACT TABLE 20
(AMENDMENT) ACT 1907 Sheet 1

Reference in text page : 46.6

1AUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

,
I10. design and construction ANTE POST
.
GENERAL
sec 23 of the Act extends the definition of a
'new building'.

sect 24 of the'Act extends sec. 157 of the

Public Health Act 1875 to include
height of chimneys of buildings,
height of buildings, structure of
chimney shafts for furnaces of steam
engines, breweries, distilleries and
manufacturies.
By-laws could be made to ensure that
a chimney of a building adjoining a
dwelling house could be carried up to
a certain height above the eaves of the
house.

STRUCTURE
Construction of chimney shafts for T14. c65
furnaces:
i Bricks on concrete bed, extending 1811
beyond bottom of footings, bed to be
181t thick min.
2 Brick footings to have regular offsets.
3 External 'diameter', above footings = still
square plan = 1/10th total height of shaft valid
polygonal = I/11th 11 11 ff in
circular :t 1/12th it if it 1914
4 Batter = 22111 in every i01011 min.

5 812" thick brick at top, and for not

less than 201011 below the top,
increasing in thickness by 411 for every
201011 downwards.

6 Independent lining of firebricks for

1/6th of height of chimney, separated
from external brickwork by 111 cavity.
I LI __J
_
THE MODEL BUILDING BY-LAWS. URBAN SERIES IV 1912 TABLE 21
The complete set, based on the 1877 selt and sheet 1
incorporating all the revisions officially made in
the intervening years.

Source: The Local Government Board. H. M. S. O. 1912

Reference in text page : 477.

CLAUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

No. design and construction ANTE POST

EXEMPTED BUILDINGS
as 1877 set, with the following added: - T8. c2

2 Cycle shed, orchard house, summer house, T17. c2

poultry house, boathousel toolshed, and still
potting shed, aviary - not over 600 cu. ft. T18. c3 valid
If 600 cu. ft. and a poultry shed in
over
then to be 101011 min away from 1911+
or aviary
other buildings.
3 Exemption of iron buildings-(as 1890 TIO. c2A
amendment).

STREETS
Ik Gradient of streets-(as 1877 set). T8-c3

5 Width and length of carriage road-(as T8. c4 &

1877 set). c6
6 Width and length, of non-carriage road - T8. c6
(as 1877)-
Secondary access street (as 1890 amend- T10. c6A still
7 -
ment). and valid
T16-c3 in
8 Width and construction of carriageway T8. c7 1914
and footpaths and kerbs-(as 1877 set).

9 One end of new street (at least) to be T8. c8

open from ground upwards for full and
width of street- T18. c8
(as 1877 set and 19011 amendment).

STRUCTURE
10 No building on fill 1877 set).
etc. -(as T8. c9
11 Layer of concrete etc under house-(as T18. cil
1904 amendment).
12 Clay pit - fill before building-(as 1883 T9. c1OA still
amendment). valid
Building on low lying sites-(as 1883 T18-c13 in
13 1914
amendment).
14 Walls - brick, stone, mortar-(as 1877 T8, cll
set)-
Cavity wall construction-(as 1890 amend-
ment). T1O.c11
"The Board have not included any but
new
provision allowing walls to be construc- L . C. C.
ted of steel framing, but 'would be see
I

505
TABLE 21
Sheet 2

prepared to consider a proviso allowing steel

this form of construction". regs. on
T25
Half-timber walls - as 1904 amendment, T18. cI4
but number of houses in blocks reduced
from 4 to 3 max.

15 Cross wall construction-(as 1877 set). T8. cI2 still

-
val i d
16 No overhanging wallsq except for T8-c13
in
ornament. etc. -(as 1877 set). 19111
17 Wall at angle to another to be properly
bonded-(as 1877 set). T8. cI4

18 Walls to rest on footings, sizes of

footings (as 1877 set). T8. cI5
-
also walls may rest on bressummers
(L. B. A. 1894). T14. cil

19 Footings to rest on solid ground. etc. - T8. c16

(as 1877)-

20 D. p. c. -(as 1877 set). T8-c17

D. p. c. in cellar-(as 1883 amendment). T9-c17
and
T18. czk

21 Rules for determining wall height and

lengths-(as 1877 set, except top storey T8. c18
rule omitted).

22 Wall thickness schedule : domestic,. (as T8. c19

1877 set). and
T8. s8

23 Wall thickness schedule : public/ware- T8. c20

house, -(as 1877 set). and
T8. s9
(Note: the figure for the max. storey
height in assessment of wall thickness
altered from the 101011 of 1877 to 11'0").

21k Cross walls-(as 1877 set). T8. c21

25 Walls of materials other than bricks- Tq. c22A

(as 1883).

26 openings in external wall-(as 1877 set). T8. c23

27 Parapet-(as 1883 amendment). T9. c25A

28A Party wall projections (as 1877 set) in T8. c26

buildings over 301011 high.
Party wall projections in houses not TýýC26A
over 30'01t high-(as 1883 amendment).

28B Alternative to above - party wall to

underside of slate in all cases.
29 Parapet coping-(as 1877 set). T8. c27

30 No openings in party wall-(as 1877 set) T8. c28

1
TABLE 21
Sheet 3

Recesses walls-(as 1877 set). T8. c2q

31 in
32 Chases-(as 1877 set). T8-c3O still
valid
33 No timber in party wall-(as 1877 set). T8-c31
in
34 Bressummers etc in party wall (as 1877 T8-c32 1914
set) and as 1904 amendment. T18-04
35 Bearing for bressummers-(as 1877 set). T8. c34

CHIMNEYS
36 footings (as per 1877 set) and T8, c36
on solid
amendment of 1904. T18 c-36

37 Flue pargetting, etc. as per 1877 set, T8-c37

but flue piping alternative now 111 thick and
being if' thick in 1904 T18. c37
again, after
amendment.
38 Flues to boilers etc-(as per 1877 setj T8-c38

39 Arch over opening-(as per 1877 set). c39

40 Jambs-(as 1877 set). C40
41 Breast-(as 1877 set). c4i
42 Backs-(as 1877 set). c42
43 Angle flues. (as 1877 set). If C43
44 Chimney thickness and height above roof- C45
(as 1877).

45 chimney width/height relation-(as 1877 c46

set).
46 iron holdfast-(as 1877 set). It C47
47 timber to flue, hearth, plugs, (as 1877 T8. c48
and 1904 amendment). and
T18. c47

48 Rendering of flues-(as 1877 set), T8. c49

49 Openings for valves-(as 1877 set). T8-c50

50 Smoke pipe/timber-(as 1877 set). T8. c51

51 Roof coverings (as 1877 set, but drainage T8-c52

clause transferred now to clause 60 in
this 1912 set).

SPACE ABOUT BUILDINGS FOR VENTILATION

52 Open space in front (as 1877 set), T8. c53

53 Open space at rear (generally as 1877

set, but with allowance for variations still
when the site is awkwardly shaped or TiO. c54A valid
abuts two or more streets: and in
space may
be at rear or side, or not less than T18. c53 1914
previously provided, but not less than
100 sq. ft. and may be connected by
passage to street, as suggested in 1890

505
TABLE 21
Sheet 4

amendments and 1904 model),

Stable also to have 150 sq. ft. open space.
54 Windows to open onto open space provided T8-c55
in C1.53 (as 1877 set).

55 Ventilation below floor-(as 1877 set). T8. c56 still

valid
56 Window size, etc-(as 1877 set). T8-c57
in
57 Vent in room without fireplace-(as 1877). T8. c58 1914

58 Vent in public building-(as 1877 set). TB-C59

DRAINAGE
59 Subsoil drainage-(as 1877 set). T8. c6O
Rainwater from (as T8. c52
6o roofs, gutters, etc
1877 set).

61 Drainage of lowest storey-(as 1877 set). T8. c61

62 Pipes, materials, sizes, drains, traps, T8. c62
(as 1877 set).

63 Disconnecting trap-(as 1877 set). T8. c63

64 No right angle junctions-(as 1877 set). T8. c64
Ventilation drains (as 1877 set, but T8. c65
65 of
with addition of following relaxations: -
This clause 65 not to apply to w. c. not
inside building and not more than 10101t
from intercepting trap. If between
1010" and 30'0" then s. v. p. at least
101011 high required).

Drains, (as 1877 T8. c66

66 soil pipe, wastes etc
set but with modifications as in Rural and
model 1901). T17-C19
67 & e. c. wall (as 1877 T8. c67
w. c. on external
set).
68 + air brick to w. c. & e. c. T8. c68
window
69 w. c. & e. c., if not in building to
have for light and vent. (as T17. c2l
opening
Rural model 1901).

to have separate cistern (1904

70. w. c.
amendment).

71 earth closet, receptacle for earth, to still

last 3 months or 40 cu. ft. min (as 1877 T8-c70 valid
1890 amendments). TIO-C71 1914
with
72 e. c. outside building, floor 311 above
ground. new

73 e. c. contents not to be exposed to rain.

74 e. c. inside building, 2 cu. - ft max cap. J
(as I
75 privy, IxI ft from house 1877 set). T8. c73-791

..,. I, w
506
TABLE 21
Sheet 5

76 ft. from drinking water (as 1877).

privy-'Ixl T8-c73-9 still
it for (as 1877). valid
77 ready access cleaning
in
78 it to be vented at top (as 1877 set) 1914
and floor to be 611 above ground,
fall 12t?Ter 11011.
with Of

79 privy, removable receptacle 2 cu. ft.,

911 floor under.
80 privy not to be in rain, floor 311 above new
ground, 8 cu. ft max capactiy, adjustable
seat.
81 no part underneath to connect to drain.
82 ashpit, IxI ft. from house. T8. c8o-85
83 it it ft drinking water,
84 ft ready access for cleaning.
85 it 6 cii. ft. max. new
86 it flagged floor, gt' walls rendered T8. c8o-95
(as 1877)-

87 no ashpit to connect to drain.

88 movable ashpit, galv. iron + handles new
6 cu. ft. max.

89 cesspool, IxI ft from house. T8. c86-89

go it 11 11 drinking water.
91 access for cleaning.
92 of 911 brick, rendered, or Of concrete,
arched over and vented.
93 Above by-laws on w. c., e. c., privies,
ashpits, and cesspools to building
erected both before and after passing
of Public Health Act 1875 (But this
-
by-law can not be used where Part III new
of the Public Health Amendment Act
1890 is not in force).

94 closing of buildings as unfit for human

habitation (as 1877 set). T8.00-99

95 Notices, deposit of plans etc.

101
102 Penalties, still
valid in
103 Power of court to remove or pull down 1914
any work begun or done in contravention
of by-laws.
I (Y* Repeal of by-laws.

507
CHAPTER X

LONDON : FIRE, STEEL AND REINFORCED CONCRETE 1895-1914

The initial reaction to the London Building Act of 1894

In the building and architectural world, the reaction to the new

London Building Act in its early years was one of general approval.
This was largely due to the involvement of the professions, particularly
the architectsl in its formation. Having spent so much time on the
bills, and having received a sympathetic reception from the L. C. C.,

the architects naturally saw the Act as being something of their own

progeny. Outside this sphere however, there were various sounds of

discontent. The Act was felt to be particularly severe in relation
to the problem of building working class dwellingsq where the effect

on density and economics was now being critically affected by the new

controls on light and air. (1) A more penetrating the

criticism of
detailed working of the Act was given by Dr. Longstaff of the L. C. C.

in a talk to the Architectural Association in November 1895 (2).

Longstaff stressed the anticipated beneficial effect that would result

for architectural design as a result of removing from the regulations

the controls on bay windows and overhanging (Thomas

projections.
Blashill, speaking at the same Association three years later, confirmed

that it had been thought that houses were "too flat'19 as houses built

earlier in the century had had bays running the full height, and the

drafters of the new legislation had consequently allowed bay windows

to return because of the "amiable idea that some variety would be pro-

duced in London as a result" M. ) Turning to Longstaff

construction,

regretted that party roof projections above the roof were still

required even though, as he pointed out, a House of Commons Select

Committee had come out against them. He supported however the

retention of the 911 thick brick wall "taking into consideration the
-
great importance of cost", thatall-important constraint, but there

was evidence of opposition to this requirement in other quarters. A

Mr. Blackl speaking at the Surveyors, Institution, condemned the lack

508
of proper damp prevention in the 911 wall, an objection agreed to by
'The Builder', although it added significantly "what an outcry there
E-RIC
9" WaLISI
would have been if theyAhad been condemned" (4). On the nature of
control itself, Longstaff accurately noted that controls on fire
escape and the spread of fire could be subject to "pedantic and
officious treatment", since the authority which implemented them was of

course the same authority which had the responsibility for extin-
guishing fires and operating the Fire Brigade. But on the official
control of aesthetics, Longstaff came out firmly in opposition. "Any

system of municipal control would" he said, "be apt to hamper the

noblest efforts of genius and at best would tend to strengthen the

tyranny of the prevailing fashion of the day" (5). The only concession
he would allow to this sensible view was the necessity to control the
?sky signs'.

Speaking from within the audience at Longstaff's talk, Professor

Robert Kerr announced his support for the concept of municipal control
in these matters, including the control of design, even though, as he

said, private individuals so disliked being dragooned. The beauty of

London - or the lack of it - was being widely discussed in a number of

circles, and the need for some form of coptrol on aesthetics was
beginning to be accepted by a number of architects, although they seemed
to have assumed that such controls would work entirely in their favour

and be to their ultimate benefit. Kerr recognised that the Building

Act was probably not the best place for such controls, since the

legislature would be unlikely to support anything that went beyond

minimum standards. What he was searching for was, as we can now see its

town planning legislation, but the time was not yet quite opportune.
The hint was more than there however. Francis Hooper, for example,

who had studied the Parisian building controls back in 1889 (6).
'asked
why the municipal authority could not control street layout and
had
frontages, as they did in Parisand as already/happened in London'

privately, on the Cadogang Grosvenor and Norfolk (7).

estates

Three technical matters were raised in the discussion following

Longstaff's talk which were to prove to be the cause of further

amending legislation. One was clause 74, required the separa-

which
tion of dwelling rooms from trade premises below, to prevent the spread

of fire. Curiously, this had not been to by the professional

objected

509
bodies in the draft stages of the bill, but now Henry Lovegrove, a
District Surveyor, expressed his growing concern at the practical

effects of operating this clause. It was open to a variety of inter-

pretations and evasions. Secondly, there was the lack of proper

controls on the structure of piers. Only bressummers and the piers

supporting them when adjoining a party wall could be controlled, and

the critical corner columns, for example, could not. Longstaff tamely

explained that the reason for this omission lay in the difficulty they

had had in trying to find the most specific form of words. It was all

still to be left to the 'satisfaction of the District Surveyor', but

with the increasing use of skeleton framed structures, this was to

prove no longer satisfactory. Indeed the years up to 1909 and

beyond were increasingly concerned, as we shall see, with achieving

stricter controls on these matters. Finally, there was a minor but

longstanding complaint - there was still no control over the precise

quality of stone which should be used in building.

Almost as the inevitable reaction to increasing municipal controls, as

now vested in the L. C. C., there was a growing voice calling for more

say in local control. Longstaff had anticipated this in his talk -

11there would be a great discussion on the delimination of powers soon",

and the local vestries, who still controlled drainage matters, were
beginning to clamour for the transfer of other Building Act matters
to them, rather as the provincial towns were enjoying under the

operation of their own building by-laws. In August 1890 the vestries

had, in a petition to the Prime Minister, sought the transfer to them

of the District Surveyor's function; in 1896 the vestries and the

L. C. C. had conferred to identify which areas of control could be

transferred to the vestries, and in 1898 the L. C. C. Building Act

Committee had recommended that streets, small buildingsq the height

of buildings, open space for working class dwellings, balconies and

projections., and the appointment of local Surveyors, should all move

across to the local level (8). The London Government Bill of 1899

eventually brought matters to a head. The R. I. B. A. petitioned A. J.

Balfour to ensure that the proposed forty corporations would not be

allowed to make building regulations of their own, that the District

Surveyors should remain independent and that the L. C. C. should make
by-laws for 'sanitary matters' (9). The London Government Act of 1899
finally abolished the oldand in many cases moribund vestries and

510
28 new Metropolitan Borough Councils, plus the City, in
substituted

spite of the opposition from the L. C. C. who naturally resented any

fragmentation (10). In building regulation, all that resulted

such
in the end was the transfer of controls over wooden structures, sky

signs and obstructions in streets to the new Boroughs, as from

November 9,1900 (11). Even this had its complications since although
the Boroughs controlled part of the act (section 84 on wooden

structures)., the District Surveyor still retained his controls under

82 and 83 - with in responsibility (12).
sections a resulting split
For the remainder of our period the subject was never allowed to rest.
In 1903 we hear that Paddington informed the L. C. C. that they thought

it would be better if the administration of the building act were

transferred to the City and Boroughs (13); in 1905 a conference of
local authorities in London called for the devolution of the Act from

central control to local authorities (14) -a reflection of the growth

of the boroughs, and possibly a desire to operate building control at

a closer level, as the building by-laws were operated throughout the

rest of the country. In 1911 the L. C. C. itself was proposing a

further devolution of powers - but as a minor c.oncession only,

to pacify the boroughs, and in fact only for small sheds.

sufficient
It is interesting to note here that the "small sheds" now included a

to 'motor car sheds' (15).

reference

The old vestries had retained the right to control drainage matters,

by-laws dated back to 1862, and being at

many having old which many

with each other (16). We have seen how the L. C. C. had tried
variance
to and introduce some conformity with its own drainage by-
consolidate
laws 1893 (17). Because of the limitations of the Public Health
of
(London) Act 1891, these only controlled drainage above ground. Now,
of

in 18979 the L. C. C. tried again, this time under the wider powers of

the older act, the Metropolis Management Act of 1855s section 202
much
(18), allowed subsoil drainage, rainwater and waste disposal to
which
be regulated. The by-laws proposed under this act encountered a good

deal of opposition, but the intricate details need not detain us here.

Whilst following to some extent the pattern of the Model By-laws, pro-

fessionAl- opinion at the time could now see no good reason why sink

and bath wastes should not be connected to rainwater pipes, a reversal

of opinion from 1873, when H. H. Collins had disapproved of this practice

(see page ISI). Nor could they inlets to drains could not be
see why

511
allowed inside buildings in certain situations; why soil pipes had to

go on the outside of buildings - old and new; why the anti-syphonage

pipe arrangement had to be so elaborate; and why the dreaded inter-

cepting trap should once again be brought back into the legislation

(19). There was also a sharp attack on the verbiage and complex style

language used in these by-laws (20). The by-laws themselves, as

of
finalised by 1900, are summarised in Table 23-

But we are moving ahead too quickly. Returning to 1897 we find the

first brief amendments being made to the London Building Act of 1894.

These were not in fact really fundamental, they were merely alterations

necessary to correct minor errors which had inevitably crept into the

long and complex original act. These amendmentsl made by the L. C. C.

in the light of recent High Court rulings, are summarised on Table 22.,

and do not require further comment (21). Of much more significance

in 1897 was the fire in Cripplegate, which started the long period of

proposals for legislation to control fire escape and which takes us

up to the next amending act of 1905.

Fire and the Amending Act of 1905

At the end of 1897 a group of old houses in Cripplegate, which had

been converted into warehouses, burnt down, with a number of fatali-

ties. It was the most notorious in what was to be a long series of

fires which occurmyibetween 1896 and 1905 (22). The Cripplegate

were conversions done outside the control of the Building

warehouses
Acts they had steeply pitched mansard roofs, over half the external
-
was taken up with openings and the interiors were lined with
walling
It was a rabbit warren of a building which burnt
matchboarding.
so that escape was virtually impossible. The jury at the
quickly
inquest asked for matchboarding as an internal wall lining to be

banned in the future (23). There was much correspondence afterwards

in the building press$ pointing out the ineffective provisions of

fire escapes and generally attacking the existing legislation. One

'London Architect' reprimanded the 1894 Act for having allowed the

of wooden cornices to dormers and flush window frames. IIIS

return
the in aesthetics worth the increased fire "he asked (24).
gain risk?

512
Cripplegate also served to highlight the lack of any uniform fire

policy in London, with controls spread between the Building Act, the

Theatre and the Factory Acts. Continental cities were found, much to

London's embarrassment, to be far better in this respect (25). As a

result of all this concern, the British Fire Prevention Committee was
formally established in 1897, and embarked on a series of scientifically

controlled tests at their Fire Testing Station in Bayswater (26).

This committee included Thomas Blashill amongst its number, and it was
Blashill who explained the reasons for the worrying increase in the

number of fires, when he addressed the Surveyors' Institution in April

1898 (27)- He said that there was increase in the

obviously a general

number of buildings, but now they went to far greater heights, were

more densely grouped and with increasing trade, they contained more

manufactured goods and made greater demands for storage and packing.
There was, he noted, a greater use of machines "driven more by heat",

a desire to keep everything drier and warmer, to achieve better

lighting with larger window sizes, with skylights, and with artificial
lighting. The use of gas, oil and electricity, together with the

lift. -which destroyed any fire separation as it ran through several

storeys -completed Blashill's summary.

To combat these dangers, Blashill proposed shutters on windows in narrow

streets, fire-resistant partitions of breeze block and fire-resistant

floors - an example of which, using steel joists filled solidly between

with coke breeze concrete, he had himself been using in his housing

work for the L. C. C. He was prepared to accept timber floors, but only
if they were properly pugged, and considered that the same constructions
with perhaps an asbestos sheet covering could be used for roofs. In

the discussion following his talk it was suggested that this new
lasbestic' might also be used for casing iron girders as they spanned
to support incombustible floors, and that concrete could be more readily

accepted for the roof, if it had an asphalte covering, particularly

since there was now more traffic on them in the form of telephone and
"electric wirew men. Andas for stairs, concrete was now recognised
as being superior to stone (28). The lessons from America relating
to fire escape were seen as being perhaps an indication of the way in

which things were likely to go in London New York was then building
-
up to 24 storeys in height and Chicago, following its great fire of
1862, was now insisting on stair balcony to window (29).
or access every

513
Blashill, for his part, considered that trapdoors onto roofs of
buildings over 30'011 high should be compulsory, even if there was no

requirement that was to come through eventually in the

parapet -a
legislation of 1905 - and that permanent escapes should be fixed to

buildings over 601011 high, a figure apparently determined by the

length the Fire Brigade's ladders (30).

current of

The search for a satisfactory fireproof floor occupied the correspon-

dence columns of the building press immediately after the Cripplegate

disaster. A solid floor was advocated as being stronger than iron, and

various patent floors were offered. J. D. Sedding and then a Mr. Swaine,

clerk of works at the new Truro Cathedral, confirmed that they had used

such a floor. It had pads of slag wool inserted between the adjacent

joists to counteract any tendency for the wood to swell if it got wet..

and was also treated with chemicals and further protected by a plaster

soffit (31)-

(n
Two years later, in 1899, Blashill was again giving his views/an almost

identical to the R. I. B. A.,, though now he made reference to

presentation

the benefits of wire-embedded glass, steel rather than wood for roof

trusses. and the linking of balconies together as fire prevention and

He persisted in the importance of the fire-

escape measures. stressing
floor, the Admiralty
resistant on the continental model, and cited

Office and the Public Record Office as good examples, but the main

drawback with all such solid floors was the difficult problem of

accommodating the increasing number of services - of telephone wires,

pipes, and bell wires in particular. Blashill had by now retired

gas
from the Superintending Architect at the L. C. GIV and his
position of

successorg W. Riley, mentioned in the discussion that a new code of,

building had. just been received from New York. This met with his

since it banned any building over 351011 high if it was not

approval
fireproof. With Riley in such an influential position in the L-C. C-

this enthusiasm for American practice was to be relevant to the

formation of the later legislation. Riley, incidentally, also made

the point - and this seems to have been its first emphatic mention -
that it 'Was smoke rather than fire itself which was the more serious

problem in dealing with escape from fire (32)-

Yet from all this discussion and concern, there emerged but one minor
addition to the legislation. Fire-resisting concrete, of coke breeze
in the proportion of 5 parts to 1 part of Portland cement, used as a
filler (i. e. as pugging) up to at least 5" in depth between the floor
joists, was now approved by the L. C. C. as an additional fire-resisting

material to the second schedule of the London Building Act of 1894 (33)-

A major fire at Queen Victoria Street on June 9,1902, in which ten

people lost their lives, caused a renewal of concern and clamour for

new legislation, although the immediate blame for the high casualty
rate at Queen Victoria Street was laid on the Fire Brigade., who had

apparently displayed an appalling lack of skill and whose ladders had

been woefully inadequate into the bargain (34). The inquest in August

concluded, amongst other things, that the Building Act was in dire need
of being brought up to date. It needed to be retrospective - to apply
to existing as well as to new buildings - and it needed to recognise
and to encourage modern methods of construction. The list of fire-

resisting materials, in Schedule II of the 1894 Building Act should,

the jury recommended, be amended in the light of the findings of the
British Fire Prevention Committee (35). The jury further recommended
that shops and warehouses should be rewclassified, that the city should
be divided into zones relating to the different degrees of control, as
happened in America and in some European citiesq and that the structural

controls in the Building Act, Factory Acts and Fire Brigade Act should
be brought together in one Fire Act. The state of diversity then

existing in all these controls only resulted in confusion and a lack

(36). 'The Times'noted: "It is the general opinion
of responsibility
of experts that London is worse protected against fire than any great
city either in Europe or in America, and probably much worse than many

of the provincial cities of Great Britain" (37). It also called for

an increase in the use of Isprinklers19 since it was, it claimed,

common knowledge that American Insurance firms gave reduced premiums

for premises fitted with a sprinkler system (38).

In November the L. C. C. responded with a bill to amend the London

Building Act. The object was "to secure a reduction to the height

above which the provision of special means can be required

of escape
in the case of new buildings and after a certain date the application

of similar provisions to existing buildings". Much to 'The Builderls'

515
regret very little was proposed to deal with the problem of structural

protection against fire, except for a restriction on matchboarding,

the enclosure of liftshafts, the control of the roofs of shops which
projected beyond the main front wall of a building, and an amendment
to clause 74 to clarify the problem of separating trade and dwelling

areas within the same building (39). The height above which fire

escapes were to be provided was reduced from 601011 to 50'0" (though

601011 had been the original limit set by the length of ladders), flats

with more than 30 inhabitants were to have escapes provided and, the

most contentious issue, only four years were to be allowed during which
time all existing buildings would have to be brought into line with
these requirements for escape (40).

Not surprisingly, the Bill encountered considerable opposition. One

party to be affected, for example, was the hotel tradeand a group of 18

hotels quickly commissioned the architects William Woodward and Henry
Florence to investigate the implications of the proposed Bill on hotels,
and their findings did much to prevent the passing of the Bill (41).

But much more opposition was to come from the 'interests of trade',
particularly in the City, where these new controls would also now
have to apply. Numerous meetings were held in various City wards in

February 1903 (42) to oppose what was called "this panic legislation"

which, it was feared, "will occasion serious loss of business", and

which was seen by many to be little more than an attempt by the L. C. C.

to throw the responsibility and cost for providing fire escape onto the

property owner rather than spending more themselves on improving their

own fire brigade service. The Bill was also seen to be "an unworkable

and unnecessary interference with business and that the measure, if it

becomes law, will seriously depreciate the value of property without

right of appeal" (43)., and it would also lower the rateable value of

property (44). Voices in support of the Bill were hardly heard amidst
the clamour of the city$ but there they were. nevertheless. Edmund

Woodthorpe noted that, as a result of an increase in commercial and

secretarial services.. "a larger number of women and girls were now
employed in the upper portions of buildings, numbers which had

particularly increased in the city" (45), and gave his support to the
Bill. But the trade interests, as always, and in March 1903
prevailedg
the Bill was dropped (46). The L. C. C. however to be defeated, and
were not
maintaining its original objectives, it asked the City Corporation to

516
"kindly reconsider" the Building Act, its effects on trade, and to

make constructive suggestions (47). At the same time the, L. C. C.

Building Act Committee were becoming increasingly concerned at the

growth of a new fire hazard oilshops (48).

-

In the lull between this abortive attempt of 1903 and the next attempt
at the end of 1904, opportunities were taken at the Surveyors'
Institution, the R. I. B. A. and at the International Fire Congress to
discuss more closely the scope of the Bill's proposals. Talking to
the Surveyors in February 1903 (49), Henry Lovegrove, District
Surveyor, gave a detailed analysis of the Bill. He too was worried
about the operation of the retrospective clauses. Alexander Payne
hoped to see a revision of the 1894 Act in respect of the window
frames being allowed to be flush with the face of the wall, and also
expressed concern at the development of 'flats', without proper party
walls between them. A. R. Stenning said however that he himself never
knew of a fire being spread by the flush window frame., and neither was
there much evidence of fire in flats. A fire in Hankey's Mansions,
built under the old 1855 Act, burnt itself out within the flat - but

the floors were made of concrete and steel joists.

At the R. I. B. A. the old campaigner J. D. Mathews objected to the Bill's

retrospective characterand found it "of so drastic a character and so

absolutely inpracticable that the best thing to do was to leave it

alone altogether" (50). The older professionallike Mathews., could not

accept further infringement and interference in his liberty by the

mmicipal bureaucrats.

Bernard Dickseeq another District Surveyorg addressing the International

Fire Congress in the summer of 1903 (51), was rather more practical and

constructive in his criticism. The critical areas seemed to him to

be first., the possible spread of fire from a lower building to the

upper part of an adjacent building when there were windows in the

party wall overlooking the lower building, since there had been a recent

case of this happening at the Home Life Insurance Building in New York

in December 1898. Secondly, there was need for control on the

more
separation of buildings and thirdly in London
-an aspect not covered
(though it was a feature of the much Building By-laws of
praised new
Montreal of 1901)- the control of the distance between windows and

517
roofs. This, was particularly relevant in the case of the projecting

shop - as,, say, a single storey shop built out in the forecourt of a
taller building - since fire in the shop could spread through the roof
to the building behind., and could effectively prevent escape from the

main building. This had in fact happened in October that same

year, with a fire in a shop in the Hackney Road (52). Associated with
this topic was the notorious section 74 - the internal separation of

a building used partly as a dwelling from a part used for trade - which

was now virtually a dead letter. Two recent court cases((53)and

see page G37) had ruled that Public Houses and Beerhouses, the building

types most affected, were exempt from this clause, and therefore the

whole operation of this clause was in confusion. The abortive Bill of

1902-3, had, as we have seen, attempted to rectify this, but without

success. It was also now seen that the 1855 Building Act had required

tenements to be separated by fire-resisting materials (within

rooms of
certain limits) (54), but this clause now covered a growing building

type, namely offices, where difficulties were being encountered due to

the method of letting 'chambers', and in the remodelling of the Bill

the need for fire-resisting partitions between dwellings - and there-

fore had been lost. Dicksee added further suggestions. The

offices -
a building should always be regulated by its cube, not by its
size of

area. Steelwork had not yet been covered by any by-laws, even

though the 1894 Building Act gave the L. C. C. the powers to do this$

and the protection of steel from fire was an increasing necessity.

Matchboardingg and lath and plaster partitions should of course be

banned, lift be apparently they were

and shafts should enclosed - as
in the Montreal Finally, Dicksee came out strongly in
regulations.
the to buildings in order to
support of compulsory alteration existing
their conformity with the fire regulations, in spite of the
secure
the building and the 'interests of trade'. The
opposition of owners
the Glasgow 1900, where exits from
example was given of regulations of
high buildings had to be built within five years of the
warehouses and

of that Act (55).

passing

Following Dicksee, Ellis Marsland added the following suggestions,

which, with hindsight can be seen to be relevant to later developments

- the use of wired glass in windows, the use of steel shutters and the

venting of the top of lift shafts. There were also visitors from

America present in the audience. One said that he was surprised to

518
hear so little mention made of sprinklers during the discussion, and

another emphasised the importance of limiting the area and height of

buildings and protecting openings through the floor. In his home town,

Philadelphia, it was, he said, the practice to separate external enclosed

escape stairs, which were then linked back to the main building by only

a platform (56). The American experience was heard with respect. They

had valuable lessons to give, even if many could see little direct

comparison. Their experience with framed structures was however to be

very relevant and this we shall study more closely later in this
-
chapter.

At the request of the L. C. C., the R. I. B. A. submitted a lengthy and

detailed list of amendments to the Building Act, early in 1904 (57)-

It would be tedious to list all the minor points, but the more

significant are selected here.

First w4s a calL for a better use of language, since, as they said, there

those who had to use the act and yet were "inexperienced in legal
were
(a cry still heard today ). Considering then matters of
phraseology"

construction., the R. I. B. A. recommended the acceptance of the cavity

walll with the total thickness, not just the inner leaf, being equal

to the dimensions in the wall thickness schedule in the 1894 Building

Act. This 'The Builder' thought to be very unsound and a retrograde

(58). The editor, Statham, similarly viewed the next suggestion

step

from the R. I. B. A. with equal suspicion. It was that floor joists

should be taken into account when assessing the structural strength of

thereby allowing thinner external and party walls if they were

walls,

than 251011 apart. What would happen to the walls, Statham

not more

asked, if the joists burnt? It also seemed to himt and there was

truth in this, that the R. I. B. A. had more the interest of

perhaps some

the client and cheaper building at heart, -. than the principles of

sound construction. On the other hand Statham was only perpetrating

the traditional view of the structural independence for each element -

a view which was, in contradiction to their views in this particular

matter, to be reversed by the R. I. B. A. when it came out in opposition

to the skeleton frame clauses proposed in 1909 (see page 527),, when they

to accept the interdependence the internal and external

refused of

elements of a frame structure. The R. I. B. A. 's that the

suggestion

minimum angle for a warehouse roof to 850 (from 750) was

should go up

519
equally suspicious. It might provide more storage space for the client,
but it was seen to increase the fire risk (59). A curious omission was
the tolerance allowed in the earlier clause for the expansion of steel$
and the allowance for a bearing of 411 for metal bressummers, regardless
of their length, was not particularly sound. Other suggestions from
the R. I. B. A. were however welcomed. Party walls to go up to only the

underside of the roof (in domestic work), and amendment to section 66

to allow warm air heating in 'coils' (presumably radiators), the

reduction of the minimum room height from 816tt to 81Ot19 an increase in

warehouse compartment size to 450,000 cu. ft,,, and the complete redrafting

of the troublesome section 74. This would now require all buildings

over 40101t in height and over 11000 sq. ft. in area to have its tenements

separated by fire-resistant floorsl and no tenement building was to be

over 59000 sq. ft. unless all the floors, stairs, walls, partitions and

passages were of fire-resistant construction. Two new appendices were

to be added, one dealing with masonry wall pier construction (60), the

other with steel frame construction, on the model of New York and
Philadelphia -a topic discussed further, later in this chapter.

On the debit side the R. I. B. A. evaded the difficult issue of providing

a proper definition of a 'building' and it made no alteration to the

to the 0
6312.,
street width clauses nor shaving clause' of although, as
William Woodward noted in the discussion of the annual report of the

R. I. B. A., this particular "severely aesthetics" (61).

clause affected

The L. C. C. took note of the R. I. B. A. 's recommendations, but produced

its own equally long and detailed proposals for amending the actf in

November 1904 (62). They still included all the fire provisions, and

now added the following :a recognition of the fire-resistant quality

of a wood joisted floor with concrete pugging between the joists; a

for windows nearer than 30'011 to premises (a
protection adjacent
start of our present clauses relating openings to the boundary of a

site); a ban on the practice of matchboard linings with a space

behind; an increase in the cubic size of warehouses; and the horizontal

separation of properties by a party structure in the form of a solid

floor, a construction particularly suitable for longer blocks of flats

with deck access. Going beyond these fire provisions, the L. C. C.

proposed to allow greater street widths, to allow no buildings to be

higher than the width of the street in front of it, to allow a larger

520
open space behind houses and finally to alter the rules for ventilating

internal courts. The Council were urged by the Fire Brigade Committee

to secure these amendments as soon as possible in 1905 (63)-

The new Bill duly appeared in 1905 and immediately met with as much

opposition from the same quarters as had the earlier Bill of 1903. A

Conference of Corporations and Boroughsl meeting in February (64),

opposed particularly the increase in the minimum width of streets from

40'Otl to 50'0", since there would be no compensation available to those

who had to sacrifice their land, and there was a fear that this action

would further limit the opportunities to provide cheap working class

dwellings, with more development outside the city as a consequence.
The architect H. H. Collins thought that the entire Bill was simply
"crude". Walter Emden saw Riley as the culprit, since he was "from
the Admiralty and therefore not competent - but
to frame the Bill" it

was really the Bill's retrospective character which caused the most
concern (65). ý The hastily formed 'Incorporated Association for the

protection of Property Owners1thought-that the Bill was tian attempt

to improve London at the expense of owners and occupiers"(66), and the
London Chamber of Commerce, in its opposition to the Bill, complained
about the restriction on building height hnd the powers of the L. C. C

to acquire premises for wider streets - all seen as another attempt to

interfere with the natural laws of property and commerce, and yet, as
we can now see, they were also embryonic town planning powers (67). As

had happened in 1903, the Lord Mayor was persuaded to call a public
meeting in protest at the Guidhall in March 1905. Amidst the storm of

protest, only one, a Mr. Davis, actually dared to speak up in support

of the Bill. (68).

The Institute of*Builders made a point of opposing the L. C. C. 's unwise

attempt to sidestep the Tribunal of Appeal and were successful in their

campaign, preventing as a result the threatened extension of Itunlimited

autocratic and dictatorial powers" by the L. C. C. (69). The Civil
Engineers took a keen interest in the steel frame regulations - or
lack of them, since the L. C. C. had not adopted the R. I. B. A. 's

recommendations but seemed intent on making their own. Furthermore,

they were intent on making them regulations, rather than by-laws, and

they had assumedq incorrectly, that they would not have to seek the

approval of the M. B. A., Local Government Board and other 'interested

521
parties' (70). The Civil Engineers consequently maintained their

opposition to the Bill. The District Surveyors did like wise since

their independent status was threatened by a provision in the bill to

make them salaried officials. 'The Builder', whilst attacking the

R. I. B. A. for supporting the 'property interest' and for putting

architectural effect and public health second to that interest,

supported the new bill, particularly for its amendment to

generally
the narrow width of streets, but thought. that on the whole a brand-new

than have been proposed (71).

act, rather an amendment, should

Once again, the L. C. C. backed down in the face of this opposition, and

all the Bill, except for Part VIII, which dealt with the fire provisions,

immediately dropped (72). Though they had retired, it was to be

was
temporary, for the L. C. C. announced that a new bill would be
only
in 1906 (73) following further discussions with all the
prepared
'interested parties' in the summer of 1905 (74). The City of London

then emerged with its own Bill for fire escape provisiong and a Select

Committee of the Commons., under Sir Henry Aubrey Fletcher, sat in May

June to consider the City's proposals and those that remained in

and
Part VIII of the L. C. Cls Bill. The City's Bill was not to be retros-

pective, which was hardly surprising, and escape was to be provided

simply from the roof to an adjoining building. The L. C. C. opposed it

the escape provisions from floors other than the top was
strenuously-
inadequate, and the operation of the measure would involve dual control,

the possibility responsibilities, particularly since the

with of split
L. C. C. also operated the Fire Brigade service (75)-

The L. C. C. 's truncated Bill was to-be successfulo, and with a suspiciously

hasty manoeuvre the Bill was rushed through Parliament at the end of

the sessions receiving the Royal Assent, as the London Building

summer
Act (Amendment) Act, in August 1905 (76). For the first timel if one

the exclusion of the minor parts of the Metropolis Management

excepts
Act of 1878 and the Factory and Workshop Act of 1901, there was now a

Building Act sanctioned interference buildings in

which with existing

LA)ndon.
*

London Building Act (Amendment) Act Jqo5

_The

The significant clauses of the Act have been selected and incorporated

522
in Table 24. Points which should be noted are as follows: the

reduction of the height from 60,01, to 50'0t', above which escape was
to be provided, was the result of the evidence of Captain Hamilton of
the Fire Brigade to the Commons Select Committee, on the effective
length of their ladders. Factories employing over 20 people, and all

other buildings accommodating over the same number, now had to have
fire escape provision, though houses with not more than two families

and buildings not over 3010" high or over two staryes, were to be

entirely exempt. Those buildings outside these limits had to have a

proper fire escape at least as far as the roof, by means 'of dormers or
trap doors, with a guard rail or parapet. Previously this escape was
only allowed if there was a parapet already in existence. It still
seemed that for escape from just below the 50'0" levelq o ne had to
rely an internal staiis or, failing that, the fireman's ladder (77)-

Shops projecting more than 7'0" from the front of a main building now
came under new regulations which required a fire-resistant roof. This

caused great concern amongst the trade. For example, 11000 shops in

Islington alone were affected and the owners of 600 of them signed a

protest p6tition in August 1906 (78). Almost inevitably, an "Associa-

tion for the Amendment of the Projecting Shops Clauses" was formed.,
and as a result of their petition to the L. C. C., a relaxation was granted

where it could be shown that reasonable alternative means of escape

could be provided (79). These clauses, numbered 10 and 121 were not

strictly enforced in practice and there were a number of fatal fires

in shops in the summer of 1906, but it was darkly hinted that the

L. C. C. were deliberately being less stringent, with an eye to gaining

support from the shopkeepers in the forthcoming elections in March

19o7 (8o).

The schedule of fire-resisting materials was largely recast in terms

relating to the functional, elements of a building, an improvement over

the earlier list - at least in terms of its layout, but curiously2
granite was still retained in the list. The use of concrete pugging,

as blocks set-between the joists, was added by the R. I. B. A. as a

preferable alternative to the wet concrete originally proposed in 1899,

which it was feared would soon rot the timber joists (81).
adjacent
Section 23, which gave the L. C. C. power to "enter, inspect or examine
any building" was however still viewed with a good deal of suspicion-ý-
as a direct infringement of personal liberty (82).

Finally, two minor points: first, it was now accepted that drawings

for approval could be on 'sun-prints or photographs' -a practical

development which in architectural offices has had far. reaching con-

in terms of labour and communications; and secondly, in a

sequences

rather more humourous veins it was noted that the Inns of Court were to

be e-Icempt from this Actq so lawyers could now legally be left to burn

to death without apparently disturbing the conscience of the

legislature (83)-

Concrete Frame Structure and the L. C. C. (General

Steel and Reinforced
Powers) Act 1909

The of the American experience in relation to fire escape has

subject

already been mentioned. Intimately bound up with this was their

experience with the framed structure, and it is this subject which now

brings building legislation well within the compass of the structural

and which completes the coverage of new legislation in London

engineer,

period. It is convenientl though somewhat artificial, to

within our
discuss the question first, up to the Act of 1909, and then to
steel

retrace our steps to cover the development of the reinforced concrete

regulations up to the First World War.

The history of the steel frame structure in America up to the end of

has been documented (84),, and itis

the nineteenth century well elsewhere

assumed that the reader is aware of its significance. ýn England at

the turn of the century the architectural profession viewed these

distant developments with some scepticism, and whilst it was felt that

frame development was likely to occur in London as it had in Chicago

and New York, it was not expected to reach anything like the same scale.

Nevertheless, the American practice was followed with keen interest.

R. W. Gibson, for example, talking at the R. I. B. A. on "Fireproof con-

struction in the U. S. A. 0 (85) made two comments which confirm the

increasing interest in the theory of the structural frame. The first

was the problem of not being able to define accurate loadings

necessary for the exact calculations. now that office premises were
-

524
sublet without prior knowledge of where the heavy live loads would be

located - for fireproof safes, partitions and fittings. Secondly, it

was now the practice in Chicago, which was at the time less conserva-
tive than New York, to assume that live loads in multistoried buildings

could, for the purposes of the calculations, be assumed to decrease

in proportion to the number of storeys, and lighter structural
members calculated as a result. A little later, R. A. Dennell, discus-

sing American methods of building. at the R. I. B. A. pointed out that

America lacked the fragmented and delaying nature of the English

building regulations - there being generally just one authority to

cover all the related controls. He also made the interesting obser-
vation that the restriction on cube sizes laid down in the London Act

made it more difficult for the English contractor to store and stack

materials on the job itself. This meant that he had to live more from
hand-to-mouth, relying on carters to get the materials to the site

on time and in the right order, delays in which caused expensive hold-

ups, an experience not encountered in America (86).

London's building legislation in relation to such theories of strticture

woefully behind the times. There were powers under the 1894 Act
were
to introduce regulations, but the L. C. C. seemed reluctant to introduce

them because of their experimental and imprecise nature. The

tradition of the Act, with its independent structural masonry wall,

regardless of the potential of the frame, was deeply rooted and, as

mentioned already, nobody seemed to expect or to want - London's

-
architecture to emulate the American heights. The Cecil, Savoy and

Ritz Hotels however all had steel frames, even though they were covered

by quantities masonry to the Act. Yet it

substantial of comply with

was possible, in a sense, to build a frame structure, because under

the 1894 Act a storey wall could be taken as a wall standing on a

bressummer, and a bressummer could be taken as the horizontal girder

of a frame. So in a multi-storey warehouse for example, walls of only

1411 thickness could. according to one architect's interpretationg be

built at each storey level (87).

If New York's legislation had been conservative up to 1899, their new

building code of that year took them well the other way. Account was
the latest 'practice importance
now taken of very engineering - of the

of ascertaining varying subsoil conditions, of safety factors, of

loadings on brickwork, the strengths of concrete, and techniques for the

fireproof encasing of girders and columns. 'The Builder'-considered

it was high time for all these matters to be covered by similar

legislation in this country (88), and when further regulations appeared

from the Borough of Manhattan Bureau of Buildings in 1903, the R. I. B. A.

Journal hailed them as being "liberal in spirit" as well as detailed in

content (89) so that

"while London. jogs along with an obsolete building act, other cities in
the world recognise modern practice by framing regulations that permit
its (steel] application and at the same time provide for the safety of
the public" (90).

The New York code was directly influential in guiding the R. I. B. A. in

the formulation of its proposed amendments to the Building Act in 1904,

both with respect to steel frames and to masonry pier construction -

New York allowed the same amount of material used in a conventional

to be in the form buttresses (91). The

wall redistributed of piers and

'curtain wall' would now be possibleand with steel allowing thinner

walls with equal if not greater strength, the economics in commercial

buildings be an obvious and welcome benefit (92). It was

would

expected that the steel regulations would be in the 1905

confidently
Amending Act (93)., but, as we have seen, this and other valuable

the Bill were dropped in an effort to maintain the fire

sections of

escape clauses.

The for the the frame was not lost

campaign recognition of structure

sight of, in spite of the set-back of 1905. In an article entitled

$'Steel-skeleton the London Building Act" in the first

construction and

issue a new journal entitled 'Concrete and Constructional Engineering'

of
in 1906, W. Noble Twelvetrees wrote that the Act was now fifty years

behihd the latest practice. The economic argument was particularly

irrefutable. In a ten storey block, 100'0" x 50'0" on plan, the floor

by the thicker walls required by the Act resulted in a

space occupied

loss 7% of the gross area (and a loss k720 annum) in compar-

of of per

ison the thinner walls of a framed (94). In spite of

with structure
to the main Building Act made in 1907 1908 (concerning
changes and
the cubic size of warehouses, later page S3t), it was
principally see

not until September 1908 that the Building Act Committee recommended an

to the Act to facilitate the and concrete. The

amendment use of steel
detailed technical clauses for steel framed and published in
work were
December 1908 (95), and in general they followed the R. I. B. A. 's

526
proposals of 1903-4, which in turn had followed the New York and
Philadelphia codes. The greater strength of the steel frame was now
acceptedq but even so there was still a degree of caution in accepting
its full implications. In particular, party walls had to remain as
thick as in the original Building Act, ignoring the use of the steel
frame for a more economical structural support. This was partly with

respect for the tradition of preventing the spread of fire, and partly
because of the difficulty of deciding the legal ownership of half of
the steel frame. Again, walls for the top 2010" of a building could
be 8_21"thick, with U1211 below, whereas they could, in theory, have been

the same thickness throughout all storeys. There was also an out-of-
date reference to wrought iron - by now vitually unobtainable in

structural sections., and the reinforced concrete regulations were

completely omitted (see later page SZS), though powers had been in-

cluded in the Bill to allow their eventual formation (96).

There occurredat this point an unexpected and misguided outburst on

the part of the R. I. B. A. They now insisted that the steel regulations

should apply only to the external walls and not to the internal walls.
The interior structure and construction had in the past been left

almost entirely in the architect's control, and although the R. I. B. A.

complained about the extra delays, cost and the checking of additional
drawings (97), what they really feared was the further interference by

the L. C. C. in their professional work, even though they would still of

course have to satisfy the District Surveyor - but then he was nearly

always an architect himself by training (98). Not everyone at the

R. I. B. A. took this reactionary stand. William Woodward thought it

was absurdvand said that it was obvious that the interior and exterior

were structurally related and interdependent and should be totally

controlled (99). Similar views were expressed by Professor Henry

Adams of the Science Committee of the Concrete Institute., as the Bill

went before Mr. Mooney's Select Committee in the Commons in June and
July 1909. Riley informed the Committee that in America both the

internal and external frame were taken together, and that the L. C. C.

had closely studied the American practice, although it had based its

rules on the R. I. B. A. 's proposals of 1905. For once there were no

property interests in opposition to the Bill, only the professional

institutions (100). Largely on the basis Captain Hamilton's evidence
of
of public safety in fireq the Select Committee the
over-ruled

527
professions' objections and the control of both the internal and

external elements of the frame were allowed (101). It was perhaps

a little unfortunate, considering later relations, that the L. C. C. did

not succeed, in taking all the professional bodies into its confidence,

and although certain clauses were adjusted (102) though party walls
-
remained as in the 1894 Act - and although the R. I. B. A. sent a

petition in protest to the House of Lords in July 1909 (103), the L. C. C.

(General Powers) Act was duly passed on 16 August 1909 ((lC4) and Table
25)- It was essentially an engineer's Act, and as such, marked a

significant turning point in the modern development of a more

scientific aspect of building regulation, and a move towards an area

of specialisation beyond the traditional expertise of the architect.

For example, the first building to be designed with a steel frame under
the new Act, the Polytechnic in Regent Streetl was designed by the

architect G. A. Mitchell, but the steel skeleton was designed and

calculated by Dorman Long and Company (105).

We now have to retrace our steps over the same period to outline the

development of the reinforced concrete regulations the inclusion of

-
into the L. C. C. by-laws in 1886 was included in
ordinary concrete

chapter VII (page 352).

Again with one eye on America, 'The Builder' noted, in 19009 that an

storey high building had recently been constructed in

eight
Washington, with a cavity reinforced concrete wall, having a 311 external

leaf 411 to 511 internal leaf. It remarked that it doubted if

and a
the English regulations should be modified to allow a similar con-
here. (106) But developments in reinforced concrete moved
struction
in the early years of this century, as'the publication of a
quickly
textbooks on the subject (which referred to both American
number of
and Continental practice) testify, so that by 1904 'The Builder' was

to be heard calling for an amendment to the London Building Act to

allow "the economic possibilities of the material to be fully

developed" (107). "London", claimed L. G. Mouchel in his talk on the

Hennebique Ferro-concrete construction in the same years "enjoys the

unique privilege of being the only town in the civilised world where

ferro-concrete constructions are actually (108). It was

prohibited"

528
possible, though rarely realised, for reinforced concrete constructions
to be built in the provinces. There was a clause in the Intermediate

Model By-laws of 1905 (see Table 19) to allow this. In London, however,

where concrete walls still had to be the same thickness as masonry

walls under the 1894 Act, it was only in the buildings of the Docks and
Railway Companies (which were outside the controls of the Building Act)

that the potential of this form of construction could be demonstrated:

"Had it been for the exemption
not of these great corporations from the
provisions of the Building Act, reinforced concrete would be an unknown
material within London. It was only the railway companies which
...
had been able to afford us the sight of a building constructed entirely
in reinforced concrete" (109).

As explained earlier, the unfortunate debacle over the 1905 Amending

Act delayed the introduction of the skeleton frame regulations for
both steel and concrete, yet pressure for their formulation was maintained.
The R. I. B. A. Joint Committee Report on Reinforced Concrete in 1907
brought the subject up to date, and expressly called for by-laws to be

altered to allow the material to be fully exploited (110). The argument

for the uneconomic use of excessively thick walls was the same for
concrete frame as it had been for the steel frame. W. Noble Twelvetrees,

a tireless spokesman for the material, speaking at the Municipal

Building and Public Health Exhibition in 1908, stressed the cost implic-

ations'as well as the structural illogicality of unnecessary thick, walls

and the extra load that they added to a building. He also made a

pointed reference to the fact that the Government seemed to be quite

confident in relaxing the regulations in their own favour, as the new

Admiralty, War Office and General Post Office Extension testifiedg so

not these privileges be extended to the at large? (111).

why could public
The Austrian Government allowed general regulations for reinforced

concrete, so why could not the British Government? (112). 'The Times'

took up the campaign with an article on "Regulations for reinforced

concrete'll with a correspondent stressing again the loss both in floor

area and in financial returnand quoted the new General_Post Office

Extension, built on the Hennebique system, which had effected a 20%

saving in cost. "Why should clients generally be debarred equal

"(113)
advantage?

Althougli the steel regulations through the L. C. C. (General

went under
Powers) Act in 1909, the L. C. C. considered that knowledge about re-
inforced concrete had not yet reached a stage when fixed-rules could
be laid down with any confidence, but powers to make such rules were
included in that Act.

With the steel frame regulations safely through, the L. C-C then set

about consulting all the interested parties - the R. I. B. A., Institute

of Builders, Master Buildersq Concrete Institute, Surveyors' Institute

and the District Surveyors'Association in 1910, with a view to pro-

ducing reinforced concrete regulations (114). The
an agreed set of

second report of the Joint Committee at the R. I. B. A. on reinforced

concrete followed in August 1911 (115)t the recommendations of which

formed the basis for the L. C. Cls revised draft regulations of
December that
year (116), a lengthy document containing some 160
Of
clauses, most of them/a very technical nature. These soon came in for
'The Times Engineering Supplementlof February 1912
some criticism.
pointed out that they made no allowance for the combination of steel

and concrete in one building structure, that both the wind pressure
factors and the safety factors/at variance with the steel clauses in

the 1909 Act; the table of working stresses was higher, than the

R. I. B. A. 's recommendations and were overloaded with formulae. The need

for so many formulae to be included in the regulations was questioned,

since it was assumed that such complicated structures would naturally

require the services of properly qualified consultants - another

erosion of the architects'sphere of control. There wass'The Times,

concluded, altogether too much 'specification" and not enough

"regulation" (117).

Being and forming an integral part of the 1909 Act

regulations, not

itselfl they had now to go to the Local Government Board, whose dilatory

character we have already observed in their dealings

and obstructive

under Burns' direction with the proposals to improve the provincial

by-laws in 1911 and 1912 (see chapter IX, page 476). The Board

to distrust concrete, and were diametrically opposed to the

appeared

position taken by the majority of other Governments who were currently

building with reinforced concrete. Protracted negotiations took place

between the Board and the L. C. C. in 1912 and 1913, with the Board

load (118).
insisting on higher factors and higher working stresses
They even implied at one stage that concrete of a superior quality

possess less strength than inferior quality (119).

would concrete of an

530
Possibly the earlier reluctance of the L. C. C. to press for the concrete

regulations was conditioned by their awareness of the problems which

lay ahead with the Local Government Board. It is doubtful whether the

Local Government Board really possessed any competent members ready

and confident to accept the inevitable move into these more difficult

and complex areas of structural engineering. Delays followed, and it

is necessary, here to slightly overrun our period by a year to briefly

trace the development through 1915. By July of that year a further

set of amendments was issued, which had been agreed to by the R. I. B. A.

and all the other 'interested parties'. These regulations were

considerably less onerous than the earlier draft, losing some of the

formulaes but in essence were concerned with only the skeleton frame

itself. They took no account of the effects of any internal walls or

brir. k piers, but they were extended to include roof structures (120).

Coming officially into operation on ist January 1916 (see Table 26).

London's concrete structural frames at last received their long

awaited liberation. Lighter structures were now possible, walls could

ýe as thin as only 411, party be
walls could of concrete, greater
floor areas were realised and larger window openings could be formed.

The area of window openings went up from one half to two thirds of
the total wall surface area. The regulations were basic and straight-
forward lacking any sophisticated response to the subtle interpretations

of structural theory. These were still to come and form part of the

modern development of building control. For 1916, however, the concrete

and steel frame regulations represented the peak of advanced regulation

and building technology in this country.

It remains to complete the account of new legislation related to

building in London in the period up to 1914,, with a brief reference to

the L. C. C. (General Powers) Act of 1908. The restrictions on the

cubic sizes of warehouses (by compartments formed by party structures),

was again coming under attack in 1907 from engineering firms whose

activities were increasing in scale. $and with the restrictions set by

this regulation, they were threatening to move outside London to avoid

them. Drapery firms, engineering workshops and motor car works - all
involving longer uninterrupted production runs for efficiency-
greater
were given as examples. The L. C. C. proposed to to Parliament in
apply
1908 for an amendment to secure horizontal separation, and to remove
the size restrictions, leaving each case to be the subject of individual
L. C. C. approval. The Fire Brigade Committee immediately countered by

stressing the expected increase in the risk of fire.,and sought com-

pensatory measures to strengthen the Brigade facilities (121).

The Act was passed on ist August 1908 (122). Under section III it

repýaled sections 75,76 and 77 of the 1894 Building Act., and allowed
the horizontal separation in the warehouse and manufacturing class

and sizes over 250,000 cu. ft.., with the approval of the L. C. C. Still

excepted were the steam boiler factories, gas retort houses and

electricity generation plants within 2 miles of St Paul's Cathedral

(see earlier page 170). The Act also introduced new rules for uniting
buildings, with iron doors in division walls, again subject to various

relaxations with the approval of the L. C. C. (123). A list of the

regulat ions in greater detail were proposed and published in 1910 (124).

Case Histories 1895 1914

The initial reaction to the London Building Act of 1894 in the

Magistrates' courts was one of confusion, supported by an unsympathetic

and arrogant stance on the part of the legislature, although it must

be acknowledged that they were being asked increasingly to pronounce

on technical matters well outside their practical knowledge.

The early case of Wallen v. Shoolbred may be taken as an example. The

complaint was that the requisite open space within the 63120 angle of

section 41 had not been provided. The magistrate. Sir John Bridge,

asked the defendant if he understood the regulation, to which Lord

Robert Cecil interposed the opinion that no one understood it when it
was passed, and then Sir John, after a careful study of the section,

pronounced it "perfectly unintelligblet'. The defendant gamely offered

to explain about the "plane of the line", to Sir John'retorted,
which
with pitiful witj "I am glad there is about it". The
something plain
outcome in this particular case was determined by the
eventually
discovery that Shoolbred's
welcome offending building, on the corner of
Tottenham Court Road and Grafton Street, counting
was an office or

532
house and that section 41 did not, in fact, apply (125)- Even six years
later, when the Act had settled down in its operation and was by then

working reasonably well, there was still the occasional impatient

outburst. Alderman Sir Henry Knight for example, in attempting to

resolve the case of Weary and Jones v. McLachlan in 19019 exclaimed in

desparation "The Act may have been drawn up by some philosopher who

sat in his closet and thought it a theoretical accomplishment, but I

look upon it as impractical and worthless" (126).

One of the most controversial areas to resolve was that concerning

definitions. Some were reasonably straightforward, such as that in

the case of Woodruff v. Meeson in 1895, which determined that a bathroom

was not a habitable room Mr. Woodruff's bathroom being 71911 high
-
than the 81611 required for a habitable room (127). Rather more
rather
difficult, and a question which reappeared from time to time, was

whether an external wall, with windows in it and acting as a party

wall. at a lower level to an adjacent building, was or was not a party

wall within the meaning of the act. Mr. J. Grover's building on the

of Harewood Place, Oxford Street, had windows in just such a

corner
its storeys overlooking a lower block of stables. The
walll upper

referred to an earlier case Williams v. Ball of February

magistrate
1890, and decided that the upper part of the wall was an external and

(128). In November 1895, the Army and Navy Auxiliary

not a party wall
Stores in Coburg Rows Westminster, presented the same problem, and

it was determined that a wall could be a party wall for part of

again
its height an external for the remainder (129).
and wall

Turning now to cases involving matters of st ructure, there was one

which produced a particularly important decision.. Now it was, of course,

the case that public buildings were exempt from the specific
still

of the Act, but that nevertheless they - had to be approved

rules -, .
by the District Surveyor. Since the new Act of 1894 embodied the

latest theories on structurej as promulgated by the various professional

institutions, the test was now whether public buildings7 designed

to the long accustomed the 1855 Building Act,

according standards of

should - have to complyl albeit indirectly, with the more recent

and relatively more severe standards the 1894 Act. The Tribunal
of

of Appeal decided this in a test case in 1896, which concerned a wall

the new ward of the South Eastern Hospital Hatfield Street, New
at at
Cross. Aldwinckle, the architect for the building, thought that a

thickness of 1411 was adequate for a two storey wall some 1201011 long,

particularly since it received additional support from 'sanitary

tunnels' and smoke vent flues. The District Surveyor on the other

hand, insisted on a thickness of 1811 for the ground floor storey.

Should the architect have a free hand? - yet surely a public building

be no less stable than any other ordinary building - indeed, on

should
the warehouse scale, the walls would have had to be 2211 thick. The

ruling came out in favour of the District Surveyor and in favour of

the higher standards of the 1894 Act. The walls had to be 1811 thick

up to the steel joist at first floor level (130)-

It was not unknown for standards to be challenged and empirically

resolved. A District Surveyorfor example, considered the stairs

at Rowton House Whitechapel to be unsafe. They were made of concrete

0 parts breeze and 1 part cement), partially reinforced, with an upper

surface of 2 parts granite and 1 part cement. The architect,

wearing

whose work in the rest of the building was agreed by all to be more

than satisfactory, was not convinced. The stairs were subject to a

test loading with 21000 glazed bricks. Signs of cracking were noted

and the Tribunal, after long deliberation, decided that they were not

extra steel joists and a steel string to be

sound., and ordered
inserted (131).

Very few cases came before the courts which related now to matters of

health. Assuming that the building press was giving a reasonable cross

the more controversial cases, this would seem to indicate

section of
that the earlier concern over such aspects was lesseningand that the

regulations which controlled these matters had, as it were, settled

down and were understood and accepted by the majority of the building

There were occasional examples of course - onewhich could have

world.
Of 1994
been anticipated when the Act/was passed, concerned the acceptance of

the regulation that a living room could obtain all its required light

directly from a conservatory. Over the years this clause had

and air
abuse, the term 'conservatory' being variously applied to
suffered
sculleries, greenhouses and storerooms. The problem of a precise
difficult and in in
definition was always some instances resulted
living rooms being badly lit and poorly ventilated, even though they

conformed to the regulations. (132)

If matters of health were largely under controls the problems of fireg

as we have already seen, had largely overtaken them in importance.

The cases coming before the courts reflected the severity with which
fire was now regarded - and a problem in particular was the increase

in the number and size of working class tenements. Their multi-

occupancy, lack of overall control when in use, and their cheaper con-

struction were the main concerns. The Portland Industrial Dwelling

Company building in Paradise Streett Marylebone for example, being

over 125,000 cu. ft. and over 2000 sq. ft. was required by the Act to

have all floors, as well as stairs, passages, and lobbies, built with
fireproof construction. It was said that paraffin lamps would be used

in the rooms and the fire risk was great. The owner naturally objected
to the increased cost which would result from building in the fireproof

construction. and dwelt at length on the difficulties of making cheaper

dwellings for the poor economically viable but the magistrate
-
confirmed the fireproof floors (133). There was still the problem of
differentiating between fireproof and fireresisting, the terms being

frequently interchanged indiscriminately, and the same applied to the

terms combustible and incombustible. Lead, for example, was not com-

bustible, yet it would obviously melt in a fire. When it was applied

to the roof of a dormer window at No. 60, Cheapside, the magistrate

decided that since it was not in the list of fire-resisting materials,

the builder would have to build a party wall 1211 higher and broader

than the in in to the Act (134).

window question order comply with

On fire escape and protection., a complicated case arose over the Berner's

Hotel in Berner Street. The architect was. none other than John Slater,
(see
whose interest in building legislation has been recorded earlier
page 360)., and furthermore he was a member of the Tribunal of Appeal,

from which he had of course to step down as his own building was being
discussed. The problem related to section 22 of the 1905 Amending Act., and

in particular the L. C. C. requirement for screens as fire protection in

corridors. It was felt by the client, a Mrs. Clark, that these would

be very inconvenient, and the associated swing doors "might facilitate

robberies as the doors could easily be wedged ropen? 3 by criminals".

Mr. Izant, chief surveyor to the Phoenix Assurance Company confirmed
in support that there was a more than satisfactory use of incombustible

material and general lack of fire hazards throughout the rest of the

hotel. The Tribunal ruled that the (135),

screens were unnecessary

535
but that was not the end of the case. William Woodward claimed that
the screenswere necessary to protect the staircase shaft, and explained
how he had installed them at the Piccadilly Hotel, and W. J. Ansell had

also installed them at the Strand Palace Hotel for Mr. J. Lyons (136).

But the L. C. C. adamantly continued to refuse to issue its final

certificate of approval)and the case went higher to the Kings Bench

Divisional Court in November 19111 since it was held to be still

necessary for "stairs to be separated from rooms or corridors by fire

resisting construction, all openings to have fire resisting doors and

windows with fire resisting glazing" 037). As it reached the Court

of Appeal the case was withdrawn when it was announced that Mrs. Clark

and the L. C. C. had entered into discussions which might, it was hoped,
lead to a settlement (138). No further reference is made to the case
in the building press, and it is therefore assumedthat some form of
satisfactory compromise was indeed arrived at.

It should be noted here that the rulings of the Tribunal of Appeal in

three cases in 1907 confirmed unofficially the abandonment of the

requirement for ventilated lobbies(to prevent smoke logging) as a means

of escape, provided that the requirements of the 1905 Amending Act had

been fully met (139). But the need. for to and

protection staircases

more particularly to lift shafts was more than proved by the remarkable

case of the fire at Spiers and Ponds'Stores in Water Lane in 1914.

Fire br6ke out there in the basement, ignited a hydraulic lift which

was somehow, due to the effects of the fire, set in motion. The lift

cage, by then burning fiercely, travelled up to the top floor where it

set fire to the top landing before it fell back down again to the
-
basement (140).

Of particular building types generating new or modified legislation

there were, besides the Cinematograph which eventually had its own

specialised regulations under the Cinematograph Act 19og (141),

of
three main categories - working class dwellings, buildings used partly
for trade and party for a dwelling, and inspection
underground
chambers in streets for electrical installations and equipment.

Rowton House2 Newington Butts, was a 'working class dwelling', and,

under section 13 and 14, it was found to be too high in relation to

536
the width of the street. Had it been what the magistrate called a
1.
"Rich Man's Hotel, like Gordon's Hotel, it would not have been covered
by the provisions of these clauses - and the enlightened magistrate

could not seeg within the purposes of the London Building Act, any
difference between a 'Rich Man's Hotel' and the 'Poor Man's Hotel',

that is to Rawton House. The (142)

say, summons was dismissed - but
the L. C. C. took the case to the Queen's Bench Division, who upheld the

magistrate's decision, though they interpreted it somewhat differently.

Rowton House was a 'hotel' for single men only, and not a"Idwelling
house inhabited or adapted to be inhabited by persons of the working

class"(143). The precise definition of "working classt' was lacking

in the Act, but in the case of L. C. C v. Hyman Davis, who built a

working class dwelling less than 201011 from the centre of the street,

and higher than the width of the street, in Brick Lane, Spitalfield,

the L. C. C. used the definition contained in section 75 of the Housing

of the Working Classes Act of 1890, and won their case (1411).

The problem of buildings partly for trade and partly for a dwelling -

the notorious section 74, has already been referred to (see page S113).

Certain cases in the early years went in favour of the plaintiff - the

'Rising Sun', on the corner of Windmill Street and Tottenham Court Roadl

had the upper living rooms opening directly off the bar, with only a
011 the the The District Surveyor
2 wall at side of stairs. maintained

that this was not a proper fire-resisting construction - and won his

case (145). Similarly, the Whitbread Beer House in Collier Street,

Pentonville, had to have a floor of fire-resisting materials inserted

(146). In the case of Carrick v. Godson and Sons in 1899 however,

the Queen's Bench Division decided that public houses did not come

under section 74 - and need not therefore have its dwelling part

separated by fire-resisting walls and floors from the trade area.

Presumably the whole premises, under one control of the resident

landlord, were seen as trade premises. 'The Builder' felt that this

judgement was correct (though it took the to attack the

opportunity

sanitary conditions of London pubs in general), but this decision

completely undermined the credibility of'this clause in the Building

Act (147)-

Inspection chambers for electricity, in really

street pavements,

centered on the question of whether the constructions were

or not new
in fact buildings. If they were, then the District Surveyor was

entitled to a fee for inspecting them. In a number of cases, the

magistrate ruled that these small structures were in fact a source of

danger to the public and should therefore be checked and approved by

the District Surveyor - even though the London Electricity Supply

Company had already, by 1907, built 12,000 of these chambers without

any trouble (148). The same ruling incidentally was made to apply to

covered-over water reservoirs (149).

Matters of design and regulation

The nature of the effects of the London Building Act on architectural

design and construction, and the reciprocal effects of new develop-

ments in design and construction on the Act, have been mentioned during

the course of this chapter. It remains'now to draw together certain

aspects of this topic which have not been discussed earlier. Specific

and direct references to this subject, made at the time, are relatively

difficult to locate, and tend to form a fragmented picture, although

impression may be gained from the fragments. Certainly
some overall
the feeling was now deeply rooted that the 'hard and fast' rules of

the Act as restrictive as ever on the architect's freedom to

were
design and experiment. They challenged his authority, they now

demanded higher technical and scientific knowledge and they confirmed

the further inroad of faceless bureaucratic control in his art.

N
John Slater, speaking at the R. I. B. A. in 1901 after J. J. Stevenson's

paper on "Difficulties and hindrances in producing good modern

still reaffirmed his objections to the 'hard and fast'

architecture",
to the restraints on straight streets (now that the evidence
rules,

of the Garden City was becoming clearly an attractive and workable

but more particularly he objected to the illogicalities

alternative),
the regulations. Whyl for example, bay restricted to
of were windows
three storeys, including the basement, whilst oriel windows could
only
height? (150).
rise up to any

At the Surveyors, Institution, William Woodward, speaking in 19039

referred to the further encroachment bureaucratic control. "The

of
L. C. C. was, little by little, taking upon itself too much of the

detailed work of the architect" (151). The change in professional

relationships was also noted - up to now surveyors had approached

architects with "a little fear and trembling" now this was all
-
changing. But Woodward was being rather extreme when he anticipated

a new style of architecture arising from "a combination of external

iron fire escapes, external iron soil pipes and angles of 63-210" (152).

Building regulations, working in isolated and detailed areas and being

the lowest common denominator of building, made little or no serious

inroads in the established pattern of high architectural style and
design.

J. S. Gibson, speaking on "Architectural Design and the London Building

Act" at the R. I. B. A., in December 1904, made a number of constructive
suggestions for improving the regulations - many of which we have
already referred to earlier in this chapter. The need for greater
street widths, for buildings to be related in height to the width of
the street, the recognition of curtain wall construction., the use

of masonry piers on the lines of the New York code and the use of fire

protected steel have all been mentioned. But Gibson also continued
to press for two other areas which upset the architects freedom in

design, namely the restriction on cornices, overhanging eaves and

verges and also the use of large plate glass windows for shops. This

latter point caused considerable heart-searching amongst architects

used to the traditional appearance and concept of a building's structure
being expressed in its external appearance, as load bearing walls taken
down to the ground. Now, with frame construction, with larger sheets

of glass being available, and the shopping trade welcoming greater

window display areasl the sight of heavy loads apparently being carried

on thin sheets of glass was both unnatural and unwelcome (153)- If

Gibson had had his way this abhorence would have been prevented by the

regulations (154)-

The Presidents of the R. I. B. A. did little to any modern and

reflect
realistic thinking, and tended to preserve some rather quaint and con-

servative notions. For example, there John Belcher, President in

was
1904, saying that "something should be done to the amount of
regulate
buildings in the suburbs - the farther away from the inner zone the

the spaces should be and the lower there

wider the houses, so that might
be as much air drawn towards the centre as possible" (155). Then, for

a conservative opinion, there was Ernest George, President in 1908,

expressing great concern over the aesthetic consequences of the slim

which would result from the new steel regulations (156).

walls

By 1911 however, the use of the steel frame could be seen to have had

only limited opportunities to display its potential. This, it was said,

was due to the conservative spirit of the legislation, with oversized

steel sizes in the regulations, and with the inevitable increase in

fees to the District Surveyor together with the loss of time while the

additional drawings had to be checked through. It was also more costly

than brick - and it came at a time when Edwardian architecture was
characterised, in its commercial and higher buildings, with an emphasis

on monumentality, rather than on lightness of structure. However,

even at the time, it was hoped that steel would be used as a "true

structural material with its use indicated by the form of structure..

.....
the sham brick or masonry alternative is to be shunned" (157)- With
...
such sentiments of functional honesty we are anticipating a new era,

still somewhat distant in English architecture, but a suitable point

of optimism perhaps on which to leave these sadly critical and rather

negative reflections on design and regulation at the end of this period.

This chapter has seen the return of London to a leading position in

the development of building regulation in this country. By the time

of the First World War it had, in the face of some considerable

opposition, introduced new rules for fire escape and for the structural

aspects of steel and reinforced concrete skeleton frames. In this

respect'it was now ahead of the Model and provincial building by-laws,

although it was still closely marked by Liverpool who, as we saw in

the last chapter, had obtained rules for reinforced concrete in its

own legislation of 1908. London had however made what was to be in the

long term a more important innovation in its inclusion of retrospective

powers, for the first timeq in the amending Act of 1905.

The-reasons for London's return to this dominant are basically

position
threefold. In the first place there the of
was re-establishment
confidence following the new Building Act 1894, as it did a
of ending
long period of inferiority on London's part. Secondly, there was the

nature of London's building at this period. This could be

particular

seen in terms of its quantity, its height and its density. It could a[sso

be seen in terms of a rapid growth and in the consequences of commercial

Thirdlyothere was the effectiveness of the L. C. C., with

pressures.
its attitude and its acceptance of expert advice from
enlightened

every quarter, including the lessons of America. Higher standards,

demands in the planning, structure and servicing of buildings,

greater
the continual pressure for development '- all these factors brought
and

greater pressures to bear on London's buildings and as a consequence,

a greater need to ensure adequate public safety in terms of building

regulation.

As London itself expanded, the rivalry between central and local

authority that we have seen in the rest of the country, was repeated,

albeit on a smaller scale, between the local London Boroughs and the
County Council. In this case the control remained firmly with the

County Council. Out in the Provinces, the control was apparently

in the local authority, but in reality they were still dependent
vested
on Whitehall for the sanction for their controls.

With the introduction of controls for structural steel and reinforced

concrete, the appearance of the structural engineer created a signifi-

cant change of emphasis. The architect suffered something of an eclipse

in this the the engineer. was supported by

respect, and ascendancy of
for his position. The R. I. B. A. 's insistence on
authority and respect

an issue out of the need to regulate both the internal as well

making
building of thisq
as the external structure of a frame was a reflection

the trying to his and control in the

with architect maintain authority

face evidence to the contrary. This debate showed the direct

of -

reversal of the architect's belief in the total integration and

interdependence of all the elements in a structure. It was a retreat

the architect back into his laagerg in the

on the part of professional

face of the apparent invasion by the engineer. It was also a sign of

the further encroachment and inspection by a precise calculable control

into an imprecise and traditional area design which had always been
of

a part of the architects' domain. In to this problem there

addition
the sign of strain between the in his relations with his
was architect

client. The architect may have been seen to support the new controls

541
which, whilst being necessary in the public interest, could at the same
time be at variance with the commercial motives of some of his clients,

particularly those involved with development and profit. This would

only serve to put the architect in a less favourable light in the eyes

of such a client. The engineer, on the other hand, was often in a

stronger position in the building world, for his judgements could be

accounted for and at the same time he was usually one stage removed
from the direct relation with the client.

But perhaps. more relevant as a conclusion to the sequence of the past

chapters is a note of the fact that we have come virtually full circle

in one important respect. The business of the regulation of buildings

for the control of the public health, the topic with which we began

the first in the 18401s, has now, ,by the time of the First
chapter
World War, been largely completed. The majority of the 'health'

have been formulated and the majority are to remain intact

regulations

until the present. In London, where the preliminary moves where made

in this direction, the 'health' rules are accepted and no new or

amending legislation is proposed in that direction. Their success

be seen in the improvement to the general health of the city.

could
But in the other two areas of control with which we have been con-

fire and stability two that preceded the health

cerned, namely -the
there is, if anything, a greater concern than ever before.
controls-
Health has been controlled in the context of building - but fire and

possible collapse are to remain a constant source of danger.

542
NOTES TO CHAPTER X

I "The requirements of the London Building Act as to light and air

spaces are regarded by the Dwellings Companies as very severe and
consequently unpopular" C. S. Bremner, 'London Buildings',
Fortnightly Review, Vol. 66,1899, P-307.
2 B. Vol. 69 No. 2756 30 Nov 1895 P-393-8.
3 B. Vol-75 No-2913 3 Dec 1898 P-506.
1* B. Vol. 68 No-2712 26 Jan 1895 p. 61.
5 B. Vol. 69 No-2756 30 Nov 1895 P-303-8.
6 see Chapter VII page 356.
7 B. Vol. 69 No-2756 30 Nov 1895 P-393-8.
8 B-Vol-74 No. 2885 21 May 1898 p. 494 and No. 2890 25 June 1898
p. 612.
9 R. I. B. A. Journal,, VoI. VIj No 11,15 April 1899, P-349 and
B. Vol-76 No-2927 11 March 1899 P-238 and No. 2929 25 March 1899
P. 292.
10 To their credit, the old Vestries had in many cases successfully
drainage work. (C. C. Knowles
carried out a considerable amount of new
and P. H. Pitt, 'History of Building Regulation in London 1189-19721
London, 19732 P-95).
11 B. Vol-79 No-3o16 24 Nov. 1900 p. 465.
12 B. Vol. 84 No-3139 4 Apr 1903 P-360.
13 B. Vol. 85 NO-3172 21 Nov 1903 P-523.
14 B. Vol. 88 NO-3251 27 May 1905 P-579-
15 B. Vol. 101 NO-3594 22 Dec 1911 P-754-
16 Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment Act 1862.25 and 26
Vic. cap. 102 see page 411.
17 see Table 13, sheet 2 and Chapter VII page 366.
18 18 and 19 Vic. cap. 120 and B. Vol-72 No. 2821 27 Feb 1897 p. 201 and
No. 2822 6 Mar 1897 p. 213-4-
19 B. Vol-74 No. 2886,28 May 1898 P-523-
20 B. Vol-72 No. 2824 20 Mar 1897 p. 268. For example, the Medical
Officer of St. James' Westminster Vestry took the following clause:
"Every person who shall erect a new buildingt and shall
provide, in connexion with such building, a pipe or channel
for the purposes of conveying to any sewer any water that
fall the roof, cause such pipe or channel to
may on shall
discharge over a properly trapped gulley or into such
gulley above the level of the water in the trap thereof"
and substituted the following:
"Rainwater shall be discharged over or into a properly
trapped gulley so that sewer air shall not ascend into any
rainwater pipe".
Besides being an early and apparently little heeded call for simpler
Englishq this alternative also reflects an early attempt to state
a 'performance' rather than 'specific' requirement.
21 61 and 62 Vic. cap. 137 and B. Vol-72 No. 2859 20 Nov. 1897 p. 421-2

and No. 2863 18 Dec 1897 P-521 and No. 2864 25 Dec 1897 P-544.
22 Significant fires included the following:
June 1896pMare Street,, 4 died. (Oilshop)
Oct 1898vTivoli Music Hall fire (a new
- cinematograph caught
building function, later to be controlled by the Cinemato-
graph Act of igog).
Dec 1898, Clerkenwell Street, 1 died.
Nov 1901p Judd Street. 3 died. (Oilshop)
Apr 19020, Hackney Road, 7 died. (projecting shop)

543
June 1902, Queen Victoria Street, 10 died.
Nov 1902 v Royal Mint Street, 3 died.
Dec 1902# Ben Jonson Road, 6 died. (projecting shop).
Jan 1903, Brownlow Street. 3 died.
Oct 1903, Hackney Road, 3 died. (projecting shop).
Feb 1904, Duke's Head Passage. 7 died.
Oct 19040 Judd Street, 6 died.
23 B. Vol-74 No. 2868 22 Jan 1898 p. 87 and
R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. VII, No. 4,23 Dec 1899, P-57-
24 B. Vol-73 No. 2860 27 Nov 1897 P-450-
25 Ibid. P-447.
26 For example : In 1899 the British Fire Prevention Committee tested
floorsl as specified in the London Building Act of 1894 and found
them to be a complete failure. (B. Vol-77 No. 2968 23 Dec 1899
P-575). Further tests on doors in 1901 revealed that oak was
better than deal, giving 1-21hours resistance, and Karri and Jarrah
gave 1 hour resistance, but unfortunately the test doors were not
well made and fire penetrated the joints prematurely. (13.Vol. 81
No-3079 7 Dec 1901 P-519)-
27 B. Vol-71* No.2881 23 Apr 1898 P-391-4-
28 Ibid. (and B. Vol-74 No. 2883 7 May 1898 p. 4J9 for the discussion).
29 For example : C. A. Daubney,"Fire Escape in American Commercial
Buildings" in R. I. B. Ao Journal, Vol. X, No-3,6 Dec 1902, Po53-
30 see note 28 above.
31 B. Vol. 73 No.2863 18 Dec 1897 P-524 and Vol-74 No.2865 I Jan
1898 P-13-23.
32 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. VII, No.4,23 Dec 1899, P-57-75-
33 R. I. B. A. Journal,, Vol. VI, No. 12,6 May 1899, P-378.
34 The Times, 12 June 1902 p. 11 col. e.
35 see note 26 above.
3ý B. Vol. 83 N0.3104 2 Aug 1902 p. 94.
37 The Times, 12 June 1902 p. 11 col. e.
38 Ibid.
39 BoVol-83 No-31i8 8 Nov 1902 po4O8.
40 B. Vol. 83 N0.3124 20 Dec 1902 P-570-1-
41 R. IoB. A. Journal, Vol. XV, No.49 21 Dec 19079 p. 121.
42 BoVol. 84 NO-3131 7 Feb 1903 P-147 and also, for example:
Aldergate (The Times, 12 Feb 1903 -P-41col-c-)
Ward of Cheap (The Times, 14 Feb 1903 p. 11 col. e. )
and the general protest meeting called by the Lord Mayor at the
Guildhall on March 5 1903 (The Times, 31 Jan 1903 p. 8 col. ao and
21 Feb 1903 p 12 col. f)
43 B. Vol. 84 NO-3i34 28 Feb 1903 P-231o
44 B. Vol. 84 No. 3129 24 Jan 1903 P-93o
45 The Times, 14 Feb 1903 p. 11 col. e.
46 The Times, 2 Mar 1903 p. 12 col. e; 4 Mar 1903 p. 12 col. e. and
B. Vol. 84 N00135 7 Mar 1903 p. 244.
47 The Times, 10 Mar 1903 P-10 col. co
48 B. Vol. 84 No-3131 7 Feb 1903 Po-147 see also note 22 above for
fires involving oil. These were a consequence of a developing
motor and engine trade.
49 Henry Lovegrove, "Regulations for Protection from Firelt
BoVol. 84 No-3134 28 Feb 1903 p. 226.
50 J, D.Mathews, "Analysis of the London Building Act (Amendment) Bill"
at the R. IoB. A., 2 Mar 1903. RoIoB. A. Journal$ Vol. X, No-9 7 Mar
1903, p. 238o
51 BoDicksee, "Fire Prevention Sections of the London Building Act"
July 1903. B. Vol. 85 No-3154 18 July 1903 P-69-
52 B. Vol-85 No-3169 31 Oct 1903 P-430- (and see note 22 above).
2 Q. B. 193 and Dicksee v. Hoskins 65 J-P-
53 Carrick v. Godson, 1899
612.
54 See Table 6, clause 27-
55 B. Vol-85 No-3154 18 July 1903 p-73- (Glasgow Building Regulation
Act. 63 and 64 Vic. cap. 150)-
56 B. Vol. 85 No-3155 25 July 1903 p. 96.
57 The full list is given in R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XIj No-7.6 Feb
1901*1 P. 181.
58 B. Vol. 86 No-3185 20 Feb 1904 p. 185-
59 B. Vol. 86 No-3186 27 Feb 1904 p. 213.
60 Ibid. p. 215- In es'sence : the collective width of piers in any
wall shall be equal to 1/4th of the collective length of piers and
together. For a wall 801011 long might have 4 piers
wall example,
each 5'0" wide or 8 piers each 21611 wide.
61 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XII No. 13s 7 May 1904, P-368.
62 B. Vol. 87 No-3223 12 Nov 1904 p. 488-491 and The Times, 16 Nov
1904 p. 4. col. b.
63 B. Vol. 87 No-3224 19 Nov, 19'64',, P. 523-
64 The Times, 7 Feb 1905, p. 4, col. f.
65 B. Vol. 88 No-3236 11 Feb 1905, P-145-
66 The Times, 10 Feb 1905 p. 11 col. e. and B. Vol. 88 NO-3237 18 Feb
1905 P-186.
67 The Times, 13 Feb 1905 p. 2 col. f and B. Vol. 88 No-3238 25 Feb
1905 p. 212.
68 The Times, 21 Feb 1905 p. q. col. f. and 4 Mar 1905 P-7- col. a.
69 B. Vol. 89 No-3276 18 Nov 1905 P-517 and B. Vol. 89 No-3273
28 Oct 1905 p. 448.
70 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XII, No-5,14 Jan 1905, P-173-
71 B. Vol. 89 No-3239 5 July 1905 p. 224.
72 The Times, 15 Mar 1905 12 B. Vol. 88 NO-3243 i Apr
p. col. e. and
1905 P-349-
73 B. Vol. 88 No-3244 8 Apr 1905 p. 380.
74 The Times, 5 Apr 1905 p. 4 col. e. ..
10 June 1905 1
75 B. Vol. 88 No-3252 3 June 1905 P-598 and NO-3253
p. 627-
76 5 Edw-7 cap. 209. See Table 24.
77 R. I. B. A. Journal Vol. XIII, No-39 9 Dec 1905, P-73.
78 B-Vol-91 No-3313 4 Aug 19o6 P-187. -
79 B. Vol. 91 No. 3328 V Nov 19o6 P-561.
80 Ibid. P. 559. Examples of fires were: -
June 24 1906, Mile End Roadt 5 died;
July 1 -1906, Kentish Town Road, 1 died;
July 28 1906, Tower Street. (no record).
81 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XIII, No. 3,9 Dec 1905, P-77-
82 Ibid. P-711-
83 Ibid-
84 e. g. H. R. Hitchcocki "Architecture, Nineteenth and Twentieth
Centuries" London, 1958, and the bibliography included with
that work.
85 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. VI, N0.3,10 Dec 1898, p. 62-68.
86 R. I. B. A. Journal Vol. XIIII No. 2,25 Nov 1905, P-33- Also E. R.
Mathews, "Building ,1 Laws of American Cities". Proceedings of the
Institution of Municipal and County Engineers. Vol. 33,190b-71
7-5398.
87 According to a letter from R. Langton Cole. Apparently the Bank of
Syracuse could have been built within the terms of the London
Building Act of 1894. see R. I. B. A. Journal,, Vol. VII No. 81 25 Feb
1899, p. 239-
88 B. Vol-77 No. 2957 7 Oct 1899 P-317.
89 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XII, No. 4,24 Dec 1904, p. 148.
90 B. Vol-85 No-3173 28 Nov 1903 P-541-
91 see J. S. Gibson, "Architectural Design and the London Building Act"
December 1904. R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XII9 No. 49 24 Dec 1904,
P-117-135.
92 Ibid. (an early use of the term "curtain wall"? )
93 B. Vol. 89 No-3262 12 Aug 1905 P-171.
94 B. Vol. 90 No-3293 17 Mar 1906 p. 289.
95 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XVIj No. 4,19 Dec 1908, P-144-7.
96 B. Vol-95 No-3438 26 Dec 1908 p. 698.
97 Letter from the President of the R. I. B. A. to the L. C. C. on March
51 1909-
R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XV, No. 121 24 Apr 1909, p. 442.
98 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XV9 No. 13,8 May 1909, p. 466.
99 Ibid.
100 B. Vol-97 No-3465 3 July 1909 P-3-10 and No-3467 17 July 1909
p. 66.
101 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XVI, No. 17,24 July igog, p. 643.
102 B. Vol-97 No-3470 7 Aug 1909 p. 147-9.
103 R. I. B. A. Journal,, Vol. XVI, No-17,24 July 1909, p. 643-4.
104 9 Edw-7 cap. 130. B. Vol. 97 NO-3484 13 Nov 1909 P-514-
105 The floors and roofs were of ferro-concrete panels on the
Hennebique system with brick and stone walls considerably thinner
than would have been possible before. B. Vol. 101 No-3589 17 Nov
1911 P-576 and 3592 8 Dec 1911 p. 675-
106 B. Vol-79 No-3011 20 Oct 1900 P-334.
-
107 B. Vol-87 No-3226 3 Dec 1904 P-565-
108 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XIII No. 21 26 Nov 19041 P-59-61.
109 R. I. B. A.. Journall Vol. XII, No-5,111 Jan 1905, P-176-7-
110 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XIV, No. 14,1 June 19071 P-497 and No-15
15 June 1907, P-513-
lil B. Vol. 94 No-3405 9 May 1908 P-545.
112 B. Vol. 94 No-3407 23 May 1908 P-597-
113 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XV, No. 131 9 May 19082 p. 412 and B. Vol. 96
No-3453 10 Apr 1909 p. 427-
114 B. Vol. 99 NO-3543 31 Dec 1910, p. 808 and R. I. B. A. Journal,
Vol. XVIII, No. 4,24 Dec 1910, P-132.
115 B. Vol. 101 No-3579 8 Sept 1911 p. 275-
116 B. Vol. 101 No-3574 4 Aug 1911 p. 129 and B. Vol. 101 No-3595
29 Dec 1911 P-777-
117 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XIX, No. 8,24 Feb 1912, P-302-3.
118 B. Vol. 105 No. 3674 4 July 1913 P-1.
119 B. Vol. 105 No-3684 12 Sept 1913 p. 276.
120 B. Vol. 109 -NO-3781 23 July 1915 P-69.
R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XXII9 No. 18,28 Aug 1915, P-483 for details
of the regulations and R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XXIII No. 201 16 Oct
19l5t P-528.
121 B. Vol. 93 No-3376 19 Oct 1907 PAV.
122 8 Edw-7. cap. 107-
123 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XV, No. 20,17 Oct 19089 p. 651-2-
124 B. Vol. 98 No-3497 12 Feb 1910 P-174-
125 B. Vol. 68 No-2719 16 Mar 1895 p. 208.
126 B. Vol. 80 No-3031 9 Mar 1901 P-247-
127 B. Vol. 68 No. 2725 27 Apr 105 P-319.
128 B. Vol. 68 No. 2720 23 Mar 1895 p. 229.
129 B. Vol. 69 No. 2753 9 Nov 1895 P-343 and No. 2755 '23 Nov 1895 p-379-
130 B. Vol-70 No. 2762 I Jan 1896 p. 40.

546
131 B. Vol-70 NO-3077 25 Jan 1902 and No-3078 1 Feb 1902 P-115-
132 B. Vol-95 NO-3148 8 Aug 1908 p. 169.
133 B. Vol. 81 No-3o66 9 Nov 1901 p. 420.
134 B. Vol-72 No. 2818 6 Feb 1897 P-133-
135 B. Vol. 98 No-3515 18 June 1910 p. 690 and No-3516 25 June 1910
Vol. XVII, No. 161 25 June 1910, p. 648.
P-7239 and R. I. B. A. Journal ',
136 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XVII, No-17,30 July 19101 P-708 and
B. Vol. 99 No-351ý 2 July 1910 P-5-
137 B. Vol. 101 NO-3591 1 Dec 1911 p. 654-5, No-3592 8 Dec 1911 p. 683-
138 B. Vol. 101 NO-3593 15 Dec 1911 P-724.
139 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XV, No. 4,21 Dec 1907, p. 124.
140 B. Vol. 107 No-3731 7 Aug 1914, p. 148.
141 9 Edw.VII. cap-30-
142 B. Vol-72 No.2835 5 June 1897 P-520.
143 B. Vol-73 No.2863 18 Dec 1897 P-515-
144 B. Vol-72 No. 2825 27 Mar 1897 P-305 and R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol IV,
No. 11, I Apr 1897, p. 287-
145 R. I. B. A. Journal% Vol. IVI No. 19,23 Sept 18979 P-476.
146 B. Vol. 68 No.2728 18 May 1895 P-382.
147 B. Vol. 76 No. 2940 10 June 1899 P-564.
148 B. Vol-76 No. 2922 4 Feb 1899 p. 126. (Dicksee v. Coat, 1899).
B. Vol. 81 'No. 3o62 12 Oct 1901 P-323. (Crow v. Whitechapel Board
of Works, 1901).
B. Vol. 84. NO-3147 30 May 1903 P-598-9. (Woodthorpe v. Charing
Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Company, 1903)-
B. Vol-93 No-3365 3 Aug 1907 P-135- (County of London Electricity
Supply Companyv. Perkins, 1907).
B. Vol. 94 No-3393 15 Feb 1908 p. 191.
149 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XVII, No. 2,20 Nov 1909, p. 84. (Moran and
Son v. Marsland).
150 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. VIIII No. 69 26 Jan 1901, p. 123-
151 B. Vol. 84 No-313ý 14 Feb 1903 p. 163.
152 Ibid
153 Henry H. Hill, "The Influence on Architecture of Modern Methods of
Construction" (Silver Medal Essay) R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XVII
No. 199 25 Sept 1909, P-706-711-
154 R. I. B. A. Journall Vol. XIIj No.4,24 Dec 1904, P-130-
155 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. XIIj No-51 14 Jan 1905, P-178-
156 R. I. B. A. Journal, Vol. .XVI, No. 1,7 Nov 1908, P-5-
157 B. Vol. 100 No-3564 26 May 1911, p. 648-9.

547
LONDON BUILDING ACT 1894 (AMENDMENT) ACT 1898 TABLE 22
61 and 62 Vic. cap. 137 Sheet I
Date: 25 July 1898
Reference in text : page SIZ.

MALUSE SELECTED CLAUSES relating to buildir)g LINKS

90. design and construction ANTE POST

STREETS
3 (i) L. C. C. may serve notice to owner etc., T14. c14
to set back building, fence or fore-
court to distance set out in Part II of
1894 Act.
(ii) "boundaries and fences" now added to
"structure" in wording of Sec. 200 in Ti4. c2OO
still
1894 Act.
va lid
(iii) Repeals sec. 14 of 1894 Act : now to' T14. cll+
in
read: - 1914
"nothing to affect powers of railway
companies under special Acts of
Parliament".

4 Houses of the Working classes : the T14-C13

pres cribed distance in sec 13 of 1894
,
Act now to read 1120101t from the
.
centre of the roadway".

MISCELLANEOUS
(service in relation to
5 of summonses
dangerous or neglected structures).

6&7 (Sec. 200 sub. sec. 3e of 1894 Act

amended in very minor detail).

8 The buildings of the Stock Exchange to

be "public buildings" under the London
Building Acts.

9 This Act to have no effect on the

rights etc of Gas Companies.

10 (cost of Act).
I I II

548
BY-LAWS MADE BY THE L. C. C. UNDER SECTION 202 OF THE TABLE 23
RNROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACT 1855 Sheet I

Date 30 October 1900

Reference in text : page 512

CLAUSE SEIECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

No. design and construction ANTE POST

DRAINAGE
1 Subsoil drainage - to be trapped before T12-C59
entering sewer.
2 Surface water drainage for yards - to be
trapped.

3 Rainwater pipe to be trapped. No sewer- T13-c39

age or sink wastes to connect to r. w. p.

4 Specified materials for drains - glazed T21. c62

stoneware, cast iron - sizes given -
laid in 611 concrete bed - to falls -
jointing specified - thickness of pipes
drains under building to be in 611 con-
-
crete all round (unless iron)o

5 Intercepting trap in main drain, before T21. c63

entering sewer.
6 Access - manholes, etc. still
valid
7 No right angled junctions. T21, c64
in 1914
8 Ventilation of drains - two untrapped T21. c65
openings, one for 'inlet', one for
#outlet'; either at one end (i. e. at
disconnecting trap or at far end of
system at highest point) whichever is
more conveniento

9 No inlet to drains inside building. T21. c66

10 Specifies waste pipe materials, traps -

waste pipes to discharge in open air.

11 Soil pipes - outside buildings - lead

iron sizes joints
or cast - specified -
- not to connect with rainwater pipes or
waste pipes from bath etc - no traps.

13-16 Specifies connections of pipes and

drains of different materials. new

17 Anti-syphonage pipes required if more

than one w. c. connects to soil pipe, T18. c67B

18 Slop sink or urinal to have syphon trap

between appliance and drain. new.

23 By-laws not to extend to City of London.

LONMN BUILDINd ACTS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1905 TABLE 24
Sheet 1
5 Edw-7. cap. 209
Date : 11 August 1905
Reference in text : page 522.

CLAUSE1 SELECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

No. design and construction ANTE POST

FIRE ESCAPE
7 New buildings
(except dwellings with not more than (see also
one family) T14. c63)
a) High Buildings, with upper storey
over 501011 above the ground and
b) buildings with accommodation for 20
persons (sleeping) or 20 persons
(employed),
to have fire escapes as approved by the
L. C. C.

9 Old Buildings
all as above, but to conform by 1"t,
January 1907.

10 Projecting shops, i. e., those projecting new

more than 7'0" from the main wall of a
building, to have a roof of fire resistiný
material 5" thick min. Lantern lights
and ventilating cowls allowed in such
if they are not less than 61011
roofs
from the main front of the building and
the side of the lantern light, etc. 9
except that side facing away from the
main wall of the building, to be of fire
resisting material 21011 high min. No still
lantern lights cowl, etc., to project valid
51011 above the roof. in
more than
1914-
11 No living room over store for inflammable
liquid there
unless are adequate safe-
guards against the spread of fire and
ready means of escape from the living
room.

12 Means of access to roof , to new buildings (see also

of over two storeys or over 30'011 high T14. c61)
(but not house
or with projecting shop
with not more than two families): -
Dormer or door to roof, or trap
door (hinged, copper or zinc
covered and counterbalanced) or
other equally approved)
with parapet or guard rail.

13 I Conversions are no* to conform to this

Act.

550
TABLE 24
Sheet 2

14 Means of escape are to be maintained

26 This Act not to apply to factories under

sec. 14 of Factory and Workshops Act 1901 new
or statutory controlled Common Lodging still
Houses. valid
in
28 - Also exempt Inns
: of Court, docks, rail- 1914
33, ways, electric light companies, generating
35 - stations forunderground railwaysq gas
40 companies, Stock Focchange, Wharfs, Royal
Albert Hali, Mansion Housel Old Bailey,
Cattle Marketq Bonded Warehouses.

34 Banks in new or existing buildings, if

34-
not less than of its cubic content
used for banking or insurance, or
partly for one and partly for the other,
by not more than two companies and the
remainder used only for sleeping accom-
modation for the officers or servants of
the company, then it can be exempt.

551
FIRST SCHEDULE TABLE 24
Sheet 3
List of Fire Resisting Materials
repeals all
the second
schedule of
L. B. A. 1894

1 Brickwork, with good mortar, cementq

etc.,
Granite, or other solid stone.
Iron, Steel, Copper-
Slate, Tile, Terra-cotta.
Flagstones as floors over arches, but n not
exposed on the underside*
Concrete - of brick, tiles stone, ballast,
balla
pumicel coke breeze, lime cement or
calcined gypsum.
Concrete and iron and Steel in combina-
tion,
2 Doors, etc, Oak, Teak, Jarrah, Karri,
etc till min.
Stairs and landings as above - treads
strings and risers 1ý11 min. thick,
ceiling and soffit of stairs to be
plastered.
Beams and posts, of woods as above or
with iron (protected by plaster not less
than 21t thick or timber being protected Till. s12 still
by plaster on iron lathing I't min. valid
thickness)- in
1914
3 Floors and Roofs : Brick, tile, terra-
cottal concrete (511 min thick with iron
and steel in combination).
To projecting shops, floors and roofs
may have concrete block pugging 511 min.
thick between wood joists9 with V square
wood fillets fixed to sides of joists.
4 Verandahs, Outside landings : wood, as
above lilt min thickness.

5 Internal partitions, enclosing stairs,

passages: terra-cotta, brickworkl
concrete, or other incombustible
material not less than 3" thick.

6 Glazing for
windows, doors, lantern
lights: if'thick, in metal frames,
min.
melting point at 1,800*F, 16 square inches
max. pane size (e. g. 411 x 411) and in panel
not over 21011 across, of fire resisting
hardwood IZt' min thickness or of iron.
Any other material as approved by the L. C. d.

552
L. C. C. (GENERAL POWERS) ACT 1909 TABLE 25
Sheet 1
Regulations for steel skeleton fraýework etc
Reference in text page : SZG

Clause SEIECTED CLAUSES relating to building LINKS

No. design and construction ANTE POST

STRUCTURE
I Specifies quality of rolled steel for
framework (but nothing on iron or
steel which is not rolled).
2 Skeleton to
sustain whole of dead and
superimposed loads. Party walls, if
any, also to sustain loads.

3 Pillars in external walls to be enclosed

by brick terra-cotta, stone, tile etc
411 thick, bonded together.
4 as above, for girders, but thickness
on underside to be 211 min.

5 Pillars and girders (not in external

wall) to have 211 min casing, but on
upper or lower surface of girders it
may be 111. No wood fixings to be used,
6 Compression flange of girder to be
secure against buckling when length of
girder = over thirty times the width of
flange, and web to be secured against
buckling when it exceeds sixty times
its thickness.

7 Span of girder = 24 times depth of

girder max, unless the calculated
deflection of girder is less than
1/1*00th of the span.
8 Double girders (i. e. two adjacent to
each other) to have separators spaced
at distance not over five times the
depth of the girders, and to be related still
to loads above and supports below. valid
in
9 All girders for external walls to be at new 1914
floor level of storey, or at distance
not more than 51011 above or below the
floor level.

10 Rivets to be used when reasonable.

Bolts to extend right through nuts-
fixed so as not to work loose. Hole
not less than its diameter from edge of
members nor closer than 3 times their
diameter to each other. (no specific
sizes given).
11 a) Walls, external 8'2111
min-thick for
top 201011, and 13" min-thick for

553
TABIE 25
Sheet 2

remainder below. All party walls to

be as thickness as in London Building
Act 1894.
b) Other enclosing walls not supported by
frame to be as per 1894 Act.
(brick etc) to be
C) all coverings
properly bonded in cement mortar close
up to frame with no cavity behind.

in pillar to be less than if'

12 No stebl
thick - methods of jointing, gusset plates
etc.
Width cast iron pillar = 5" minof
13 of
ill min thick (or 1/12th least
metal
width of pillar) - cap and base of pillars
joints to have 4 holes min, of bolts
-
not less in dia, than thickness of metal
(but reduced proportionately if more
than 4 holes to ill dia).
used - a min. of

11* Base of pillar properly bedded to trans-

mit loads uniformly.
Stress on any metal between a super-
15
imposed pillar and a pillar beneath, not still
to exceed stress on the superimposed valid
new in
pillar.
1914
All floors and staircases with their
16
enclosing walls to be of fire resisting
materials and carried on supports of
fire resisting materials.
Metalwork to be
clean, covered with 1
17
coat tar or paint before erection and 1
coat after. When encased in brick etc,
a cement wash may be used.

18 a) deadload defined - actual weight of

walls, floors, roofs, partitions.
b) superimposed loads - all other loads.
C) loads domestic 70lbs/sq. ft.
office 100lbs/sq. ft.
(public 112lbs/sq. ft) not in
later
warehouses 224lbs/sq. ft.
20 & from horizontal
roofs or over
= 28 lbs, including wind load.
all other roofs = 56 lbs inc-
wind load.

19 Reduction of loads for storeys below

roof and top
storey (except warehouses):
a) next storey below top, reduce by 5%
b) next storey befowl reduce by 1096
and by 5% for all lower storeys.

554
TABLE 25
Sheet 3

20 Horizontal wind pressure = 30 lbs/sq. ft.

on upper Z/3rd of surface exposed to wind.
21 Working stresses given in tables for new still
cast iron mild steel pillars and for valid
eccentric loadings. in
1914
22 Stress in wrought iron pillars not to
exceed 2/rd of those for mild steel
pillars.

23 Limits shear on rivets.

24 Working stresses on iron and steel
(other than'pillar. 6) given in listed
table.

25 Bearing pressures of differing foundation

conditions.
26 Pressure on concrete founds not to
exceed 12 tons/sq. ft.

27 Height of brick pillar without lateral

support =
6 times its width. With lateral support
+ 12 times its width. (never less than
13-21" )-

28 Pressures on differing types of brick-ý

work (listed).

29 Provisions for concrete, materials,

proportions, as L. C. C. may prescribe.

30 Use of skeleton frame in extensions or

alterations of existing buildings.

31 Conditions under which any new standard-

ized structural metals may be used.
32 Submission of drawings and calculations.

33 D. S. to approve quality of materials.

34 L. C. C. powers to modify or waive require-

ments in certain subsections (fire
protection, of pillars, girders acting
together, wall thickness, cleaning and
painting, mortar, pillar connections,
wind pressures, foundation pressure,
proportions of brick pillars.

Appeals.

555
L. C. C. REINFORCED CONCRETE REGULATIONS 1915 TABIE 26

made under Section 23 of the L. C. C. (General Powers) Sheet I

Act 1909
came into force 1 Jan 1916

Source: 'Concrete and Constructional Engineering Vol X,

No-8, P-377 on.
Reference in text page

CLAUSE ISELECTED CLAUSES related to building LINKS

No. design and construction
(outline of coverage only given below) ANTE POST

PARr I
1-6 Definitions-scope-skeleton frame-use of
party walls - floors, stairs of incom-
bustible material roof, may have wood
framing - no electrical current through
reinforcement - notices, plans.

PART II
7-24 Dead load-superimposed load,
domestic=709 hospitals=84, offices=100,
public-112, ball/drill halls=150,
museums/warehouses=224 lbs per sq. ft.
Stairs=120 lbs/sq. ft. Roofs as for steel
regs. 1909. Rolling loads-partitions.
Wind pressures (as steel), working load-
weight of concrete-144lbs/cu. ft.

25-41 Span: depth ratios; bending moments for

various conditions of fixings; of beams
and of slabs.
42-54 Working stresses listed; hooks and
anchors; grip; modular ratios.
PART III
55-71 Beams - bar sizes, reinforcement, shear, new
splays, brackets. (see als
T12. sl
72-79 Slabs - depths, bar sizes.
and
80-93 Resistance moments-notation-formulae. T19. sl)
PART IV
94-125 Pillars and struts - reinforcement sizes;
binding, notation, formulae.
PART V
126-135 Walls - thickness 411 min. in r. con. -
brick 8111 for top 2010't and 1311 below.
)penings may be up to 2/rd of wall area
per storey. Party walls of r. conc.
811 min. (13" to warehouse or steel
frame building) - mortar - pressures on
brickwork.
1=
PARr VI
136-7 Foundations-pressures. on plain conc.
12 tons/sq. ft.

556
TABLE 26
Sheet 2

PART VII
138- Protection - cover to reinforcement -
143 end 21t, pillar 11211, beams 111, slabs _217"
(and not less than dia. of bar).
PARr VIII
141k- Materials and testing-quality and
V2 proportion of materials, manner of new
mixing and placing, compressive strengths
after 1 and 4 months.
PART IX
173-7 Formwork and centering.
PARr X
178- Workmanship - as continuous as possible
188 protect from frost - no cutting which
might reduce strength (for pipes etc)
wood fixing blocks in concrete.

557
CONCLUSION

This concluding chapter examines the significance of the more important

findings which this study has brought to light. These findings can be
conveniently discussed in three groups, and are arranged in a sequence
which runs from the general to the particular. The three groups are:
1) The influence on the building regulations of factors outside the

world of building,

2) factors associated more closely with the world of building. and

3) factors which are directly associated with the regulations
themselves.
The final pages examine the legacy of the building regulations as it
has been inherited from the nineteenth century.

The first section concerns the influences which came from outside the
immediate world of building. The more obvious facts that made the new
controls necessary in the early nineteenth century are familiar and need

only be restated briefly here. They include the growth of the towns,

the increase in building in the urban areas and the dangers to public
health and safety which resulted from these pressures. But behind

these pressures there were more subtle and less obvious forces at work

which, whilst not having direct physical manifestation, nevertheless

had a permanent and marked effect on the evolution of the regulations.
These were:

a) the role of Government, changing political attitudes and the function

of the machinery of Parliament,

b) the growth of local governments and the antagonism between local

and central goverrgnent,

C) the importance of London, Liverpool, and the relationship between

London and the provinces,, and
d) the relationship between law and public opinion, and the influence

of 'vested interests'.

'la Role of Government, changing Political attitudes and the function of

the machinery of Parliament I
In the 1840's, the concept of a domestic and social legislation, which

558
would have been the appropriate area of legislation to include building

regulationg was seen by politicians and much of society, to be quite

alien to the proper role of Government. Higher matters - of financial

and foreign policy- were the proper responsibilities. For the first

half of the century, the emphasis was very much on the defence of the

rights of the individualg the sanctity of his private property and

the maintenance of his vested interests. It was for these reasons
that many of the early proposals for building regulationsl desirable

as they may have been within the context of building, nevertheless

failed to win support. One such proposal was clause 21 of Lord

Normanby's first Bill of 1841 (see page 58), which was deliberately

phrased to prevent the back-to-back house. This clause was rejected,

for the reasons mentioned above, by the Select Committee enquiring
,
into the Regulation of Buildings in 1842 (page 35),, and again by the

Royal Commission on the State of Large Towns and Populous Districts in

1844 (page 46). Had it been passed - in what was intended to be the

first National Building Act - the effect on the housing form of many

nineteenth century towns would have been substantially different.

But as it was, Leeds continued to build back-to-backs through the

century (page 455), and under Doncaster's by-laws it was

nineteenth
possible to build back-to-backs in 1902 (page 468). Indeed, not
still
until 1909, did Section 43 of the Housing and Town Planning Act

on a national basis, the building of the back-to-back house

prohibit,
(page 475).

Besides this resistance to entertain domestic reforms, government in

the first half of the century, was insecure and lacking in confidence.

The caution of the Tory Ministry of Peel between 1841 and 1846 was,

for one of the main reasons why the reforms recommended in

example,
the Reports on the Health and State of the Towns in the early 1840's

failed to be achieved. Lord Normanby's first Bill for a national

Building Act succumbed in 1841 as the Government fell (page 33), and

the early Public Health Bill was lost as a result of Peel's resignation

in 1846 (page 142).

Between 181*6 and 18679 most Governments were markedly unstable.

There were eight separate administrations and for much of the time,

no Ministry could maintain a stable majority. Issues were confused,

opinions changed quickly and the prospect for any fresh building

559
legislation was bleak. This coloured not only the difficult period
preceding the new Building Act for London in 1855 (page 80), but also
accounts for the extreme reticence and caution which was reflected in
the publication of the first Form of By-laws of 1858 (page 224).
After the Reform Act of 1867 however, the political scene cleared as
the lines between Gladstone and Disraeli became more clearly drawn -
Gladstone tending to retard domestic reformt Disraeli to encourage it.
For example, Sir Charles Adderley's attempt to secure a consolidated
Public Health Bill was thwarted by Gladstone's ministry in 1871 (page

246), and again in 1873 (page 248) But the Disraeli

. with return of

and his Conservative Government in 1874, the situation eased signific-

antly. The Public Health Act was passed in 1875 - and within it, in

section 157, came the important extension of the powers to make

building by-laws (page 251).

The return of Gladstone to the Premiership in 1880 and the domination

of Liberal politics until 18942 marked a return to policies which had

less direct effect on building regulation. Indirectly however, two

statutes did have important consequences. The Franchise Act of 1884

(page 308) extended the vote to rural areas and eased the later

extensions, in 1890 and 1901, of the by-laws into rural areast and
the Local Government Act of 1888 (page 309) introduced the system of

countyq urban and district councils. The result was an increase in

their power and an improvement in their administration, facts which

served to maintain and extend the scope and operation of the local
building by-laws, and to diminish further any call for a National
Building Act.

At the end of the. century the Government was fully occupied with

overseas and imperial issues and again less with domestic matters.

With the Boer War of national concern in 1900, it was not ourprising
for the problem of the rural by-law to fade in (page
significance
449), and for the gallant Building By-law Reform Association to be

frustrated as a result.

whilst political activity had these effects on the evolution of the

regulations, it was also the case that the machinery of Parliament

could affect its progress. The Pattern of formal : drafting

procedures
a bill, the three successive readings in both Houses, the intervening

560
and often lengthy Committee and Report Stages - all served to delay

and frustrate very many proposals for reforming the regulations.

When the Government fell in 1841, Lord Normanby's first bill fell with
it (page 33)9 and when Colonel Sykes valiantly attempted to introduce

new measures to control fire% in his bill to amend the Metropolitan

Building Act in 1862 (page 171), his efforts were in vain simply
because the time Jn, the current session of Parliament was insufficient.
Againg it was at the Committee Stage that the Metropolitan Building

Act amendment bill fell in 1874, assisted by the entrenched attitude

the Metropolitan Board of Works (page 182)', and the conflict between
of
the respective roles of the Commons and Lords did little to help the

passage of the Building By-law Reform Association's Bill in 1906

(page 406). On the other hand, there were instances where Parliament

made positive alterations to a bill - as an expression of the

interests of its members rather than on the advice of its technical

advisers. The House of Lords, for example, responding to commercial

pressures, raised the maximum permitted height of buildings in London

to 90101t in 1890 in the formative stages of the new London Building

Act (page 363), although it was subsequently modified, on the

of a Select Committee of the Lords, to 801011 (page 402).
reflection
But in general the evidence confirms that the operation of the
Parliamentary machine was a hindrance to the passage of new building

regulations. Any enthusiasm for the initial reforms was quickly

dissipated, compromise was accepted as inevitable, and the final

legislation weaker as a result.

lb The growth of local government and the antagonism between local and

central government

The establishment of an efficient system of local government was one

of the most important legislative contributions of the nineteenth

Its sources have been charted in Chapter III and, after the
century.
of the Municipal Corporation Act in 1835 (page 130), it grew
passing
with increasing effectiveness, throughout the century. It
steadily,
important because it provided the administrative framework which
was
in turn resulted in a more effective operation of building regulation.

It also generated, after the passing of the Local Government Act in

1858 (page '47), a controlling central body, in the Local Government

Act office, and subsequently, the Local Government Board. In London

561
a parallel situation occurred with the passing of the Metropolis
Local Management Act in 1855 (pages 162,16q), and the establishment
of the Metropolitan Board of Works, forerunner of the London County
Council.

There was always an element of distrust and suspicion between local

and central government, which mounted at times to almost open

antagonism. This distrust - as it was seen between a local authority
and the Local Government Board - did much to cloud the critical
relationship between them, and consequentlyq the introduction and
operation of the building by-law controls.

Distrust and suspicion appeared, in different guises, constantly

throughout the century. Liverpool sensed its and decided to promote
its own Building Act in 1842 (page 26) rather than succumbg as it
saw it, to the national Act implied by Lord Normanby's Bill of 1841.
Tom Taylor sensed it when he issued the first Form of By-laws in
1858 - the Forms were, he emphasised, Itsolely in the way of suggestion"
(page 224). It was still there at the end of the century when
Russell, Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board,, told

a deputation from the RIBA in 1899, that the business of the Board

advising local authorities "was always a delicate matter, owing to

the jealousy of local authorities at the interference of a central
authority" (page 448). It even operated a local authority,
within
as the new London Boroughs sought to wrest building regulation tontrol

away from the larger L. C. C. in 1890 (page 510). These tensions go a

long way to explain the sensitive nature of this aspect of legislation,

and the difficulties of interpretation and implementation which still

characterise the building regulations.

The local authority sought to maintain its autonomy as far as it

could, but since it could not make its own legislation without
to Parliament, dominated to
recourse central control - though outward
appearances administration rested at the local level. This fact is
important and quite fundamental to building regulation both in the

nineteenth century and today : whatever a local authority wished to

incorporate in its regulations had to be approved by central govern-
ment - that isq its agency in the Local Government Board. The

approval granted by the Board to a local authority's by-laws

proposed

562
was in fact a very tight form of control. It meant a change in the

emphasis of the "Model'? By-laws, from being mere suggestions to

positive requirements.

Yet behind all this lay a further important factor. These regulations

were largely permissive -a town did not have to make building by-laws

at all, if it did not so wish. In section 157 of the Public Health

Act of 1875, it stated that a local authority "may" make by-laws,

not "shall". Any mandatory control would have. interferred with the

'natural' forces of growth and the economic development of the townsq

and might have jeopardized the elected positions of the men who

represented these very towns in Parliament itself. Nevertheless, as

the century progressed, many more towns did come to accept the

controls embodied in the Model By-laws, in acknowledgement of the

wider benefits and welfare of the town. This change of attitude was
largely due to the growth of a more humanitarian concern for public

welfare ideas that go back to Jeremy Bentham and the Utilitarian

movement and also to the more obvious fact that the operation of
these by-law controls could be seen to be having beneficial effects

on the general state of the townsq which had adopted the Model By-laws

an early date (such as Birmingham in 1877).

at

The predominant concern was expressed by the urban areas. It was not
until nearer the end of the century that pressures built up to extend
the 'benefits' to the rural areas. Then a further reaction was en-
countered between central government and the local representations
made by the more wealthy landowners (page 459)-

Ic The importance of London, Liverpool and the relationship between

London and the provinces

Tvo cities in particular had important roles in the evolution of the

building regulations:, London and Liverpool. Their contribution in

terms of the details of the regulations is held over until the third

section of this chapter.

London held the key. Here was the seat of Government and the location

of the Parliament which formulated and effectively controlled the pattern

of the building regulations in the rest of the country. Iondon had

its own long and respectable history of building regulation and, as

563
one of the fastest growing cities, it generated and resolved a number
of building problems well before the rest of the country. To a
lesser extent, Liverpool faced many similar problems as a result of
the Irish immigration in the 1840's and the growth of the seaport

and trade. It also had a history of its own building regulations.

The lead set by both cities and the precedents they established in

their (both jealously their local acts

own regulationsg maintaining
throughout the century), were used as a model for the formulation of

much of the subsequent provincial legislation. Yet their influence

was not constant throughout the century. Both had an influence in the

first half of the period% when the use of the statute was seen to be

the preferred method of building regulation. They were then eclipsed

in the 1870's by the emergence of the By-law as the favoured means

of control - and London, for examples fell back significantly as it

attempted time and time again to secure a major alteration to the

weighty Building Act - in the long period between 1855 and 1894. At

the end of the century however, the achievement of the London Building

Act of 1894 and, to a lesser extentg the Liverpool Improvement Act of

1888, came back to the fore as sources of new controls in the Model

By-laws. (The details of these influences are discussed in section

3 below).

Rather as the local authorities were suspicious of central control,

so they were equally suspicious of the power, privilege and position

of London. Its special treatment - its exclusion from the Public

Health Acts of 1848 and 1875 for example could only serve to re-
-
inforce that view. Furthermore, any form of national building act

which took London's Acts as a model as did Lord Normanby's Bill in

-
1841 - must have been viewed with distrust by the provincial towns.

The reasons for this lie in further examples of attitudes which

characterise this country -a preference for the small scale, the

local and parochial, a jealous guarding of local independence and a

rejection of distant large scale legislative intervention. Seen

from the provincial towns, any proposal for a national measure

emanating in fact from Parliament was identified and rejected - as being

-

synonymous with London and all it stood for.

564
ld The relationship between law and public opinion and the influence

of 'vested interests'.

There is in this country a feeling for conservatism, for maintaining

established forms. We prefer our new legislation to conform to the
traditions of the old. We tend to prefer piecemeal legislation,

counselling caution at every step. This conservatism was a funda-

mental attitude held by the public, influencing particularly its

opinion of the law in the nineteenth century. Then, as now, we

prefer to deal with the particular and identifiable problem, rather
than with the broader issues which may lie beneath the problem. We

prefer to use precedent whenever possible. The implications of this

latter point will become more clear when the internal nature of the

regulations is considered later.

These basic factors go a long way towards accounting for the slow

evolution and the multiplicity of the early building regulations.

There is, of course, some truth in the counter argument that such an

approach ensures a sounder and more well formulated legislation,

despite the delays and frustrations involved. But in relation to

building where, particularly in the nineteenth century, the demands

for safety were many and variedg the need for a quicker and bolder

approach to legislation became painfully apparent. The machinery of

legislation was correspondingly laborious and lethargic. The simple

extension of the enabling Act which would allow the by-laws to control

the construction of hearths., for exampleg took 15 years - from the

Public Health Act of 1875 to its amendment in 1890. Yet the hearth

was virtually universal, and, in relation to the potential fire danger

from its proximity to floor timbers, one of the most critical areas

requiring control.

Dicey argues(l) that the law makers of the nineteenth century were

older men, and they tended to implement the ideas which had been

current in their youth. This helps to explain why those who prepared
the Public Health measures in the 1870's were, in a sense, not only

consolidating existing legislation but also basing their new ideas on

those of the 1840's - and again on the ideas of Jeremy Bentham.
Disraeli himself, supporting the vision of "Young England" in the
1840's, was to emerge at the head of the reforming administration in

the 1870's. The first half of the period, from 1840 to 1875 can be

565
seen therefore as a gradual move towards the implementation of the
"the
Benthamite ideal of greatest good of the greatest numbe3ý1 and
the second halfq from 1875 to 1914, as a move towards what Dicey

called the "collectivist tendency" - that is, the move towards

socialism and the intervention of the State for the benefit of all.
Such changes in opinion are reflected in the pattern of the evolving
building regulations. For example, the triumph of the Public Health
Act in 1875 could be seen as the culmination of the earlier tentative

movement towards the idea of public health originating in the Reports

of the 18401s; then, as an example of the "collectivist tendency",

the gradual domination of the Local Government Board after 1875 as it

rose in power and influence, co-ordinating, as the agent of the Stateg

the standards of the various local building by-laws. This in turn

led to a reaction, marked by organised protest in defence of the
individual, in, for examples the Building By-law Reform Association

of 1902 (page 459). A further factor which had an important and

persistent effect on the evolution of the regulations was the protesting

voice of the groups who represented various 'vested interestst. These

groups were drawn mainly from the new middle class (whose effectiveness
increased after the extension of the franchise in their direction in

the Reform Act of 1832), and their interests were principally the

results of the expansion of trade and industry in the nineteenth

century. Any building regulations which threatened to interfere with
their business activity were therefore liable to be resisted strongly.

It wasq for example, the boiler manufacturers, needing larger

factories unrestricted by fire compartment walls, who succeeded in

1860 in secur)ýing an amendment to just that effect in the Metropolitan

Building Act (page 170) ; it was the representatives of the timber

trade who successfully resisted any controls on timber stacks in

London (page 172),. and it was the warehouse men who claimed larger

compartment sizesq even though they were fiercely opposed by the Fire
(pages 173-5). In 18111 it was the builders
and Insurance offices and

surveyors of London, Birmingham and Leeds who feared the loss of

'useful' land if the back-to-back house was prevented (page 43); in

the 1890's it was the hotel trade and office developers who protested
the 450 and 6310 'shaving clause' and the controls on lightwells
against
tall buildings (pages 402,405,411),
in and it was the 'City' who

feared the effect of the retrospective measures proposed in the fire

566
escape clauses of the London Building Act (Amendment) Act of 1905
(page 521). Even the upper classes began to protest, as their 'vested
interest' in the provision of cheap cottages for their agricultural
labourers began to suffer as the building by-laws were extended into
the rural areas at the end of the century (page 459).

Above all. howeverl it was the shopkeeper who made the most persistent

complaints. He objected to the open "arealll required to give air to

a cellars being in front of his ground floor shop window (page 38),

hence the incorporation of the grating in the relevant clause in the

Metropolitan Building Act of 1844 (Table 4, 1) (page 73). He

sheet

objected to having to put steps up into his shop (pages 41,282), as

a result of having to raise the floor above'the damp proof levell-

hence the involved solution proposed by the architect to the Local

Government Board in 1890 (Table 91 2) (page 291). He

sheet

objected to the requirement for a yard at the rear of his premises

to remain open - since he preferred to extend the full depth of his

site for the largest shop area (page 82) and hence the allowance in

the Metropolitan Building Act of 1844, and again in the Act of 1894,

for the open area to be measured above the level of the ground

storey (Table 4, sheet 7 and Table 14,1 sheet 1). He objected to a

building line, when he wanted to extend his shop into the front

gardeng beyond the 'general line of fronts' (page 165). He

objected to the rules made in 1905 to control the construction of

the roof of his shop when it projected in front of the upper storeys
(page 523) and he persisted in seeking the widest possible spans for
,
his shop window, with the minimum of interference by way of supporting

structurel to leave no impediment to the insertion of the newly

developed plate glass shop window (page 539)-

These, and many similar instances of demands from the 'vested interests'

were always carefully heeded. Their total effectq throughout the

nineteenth century, was often more immediate and effective, because

of their closer relation to the electorate, than the more learned

deliberation of the professions. But even there, vested interests

were at work. Had not the R. I. B. A., in considering the Steel Frame

regulations in 19099 insisted on its traditional right to design the

interior structures independent of the external structure, for fear

567
of losing its control to the engineers and surveyors? (page 527)-

2 In this second section, the factors considered are those concerned

more directly with the building world. They may be summarized as

follows: -
a) the nature of the building industry,

b) new developments in building - new types of building, new

materialsl structure and services,

C) advances in a more scientific understanding of building

matters,
d) the effect of building disasters on the regulations,

e) influences from abroad,

f) influence of the professions,

g) influences from the changes in architectural styleg

h) influence of building journals and other publications.

2a Nature of the building industry

The nineteenth century witnessed the emergence of the general

building contractor, with a proper concern for organized business.

Some firmsj such as that of Thomas Cubitt. Holland and Hannen and

the Lucas Brothers, achieved well established positions. But seen

against the total quantity of building and builders they were a

minority. Most buildingg particularly that at the speculative

housing level (to which the building regulations primarily
were

addressed)ýwas undertaken by small firms employing only a handful

of men or relying heavily on sub-contracting (2). And they continued

to build in the traditional methods inherited from the previous

century.

Building regulations have to reflect the general building practice

of the time. They cannot be ahead of it, nor must they maintain the
the1jerry 1
worst practices of builder. They are slow to respond to
innovation. The London Building Act 1894, for example, still required
the inner leaf of a cavity wall to be the same as the full thickness

stipulated in the traditional wall thickness schedule (Table 14,

Schedule I cl. 5), and yet Knight's Annotated Model By-laws had

568
included a reasonable clause for cavity walls in 1890 (Table 10,

sheet 1). Againg the Model By-laws of 1912 gave only cautious
encouragement to a steel frame structure - "The Board have not
included any provision allowing walls to be constructed of steel
framingg but would be prepared to consider a proviso allowing this
form (Table 21, sheet 1, cl. 14) the L. C. C.
of construction" - and yet
General Powers Act 1909 had specifically dealt with regulations for

steel skeleton framework (Table 25)-

These inconsistencies clearly reflect the confusion and contradiction

which resulted from the combination of the two factors -a fear of

innovation and a desire to maintain traditional building technique.

The level at which the regulations was pitched was critical. In

buildingg which lacked accurate scientific accountability and relied

on empirical method for its progress, the incorporation of innovations

into the legislation obviously had to be considered with caution.

Equallyq since the regulations had to be understood universally even
by the least educated builderss the regulations had to be phrased
(albeit in their own legal terminology) to correspond to the generally

accepted techniques understood by the majority of builders. This was

the dilemma - the nature of building and the nature of legislation

were fundamentally incompati. ble.

2b New developments in building - new types of buildingg newmaterials,

structure and services

The changes in the regulations to respond to these factors are

numerousl but they are all characterized by the length of time between

being first raised and finally accepted by the legislation. Just

occasionally the gap was relatively short - in the case of hollow

bricksl for example. it took just two years between the Official
)
Referees' ruling in the test case in Clerkenwell in 1853 (page 93)

and the rewording of the Metropolitan Building Act in 1855, replacing

"sound" and "solid work" (,vihich had legally hollow bricks)
prevented
Ithard and incombustible" and "solidly put together" (page 94).
with
But that was an exception - usually the interval was considerably
longer. Concrete walls for example took nearly 20 years, between

Joseph Tall's experiments in 1867 (page 191) and the By-laws made
in London in 1886 to permit the general use (page 352).
of concrete

569
Reinforced concrete was foreseen in the L. C. C. General Powers Act of
1909 - but the controlling regulations did not come into operation
until 1916.

In connection with materials it is important to realise that their

increased availability, as a result of the extension of the railway

systeml influenced the evolution of the by-laws. (The acres of Welsh

slate on the roofs df the 'by-law' houses in many industrial towns

is evidence of that availability). The consequence for the building

regulations was that they could now be drafted by the Local Govern-

ment Board in the knowledge that nearly all towns could readily

obtain the same range of materials, and that therefore the pressures
from local authorities to use local materials would be eased. This

was a further reason why the extension of the urban based by-laws

into the rural areas - away from the diect transport routes - caused

so much concern at the end of the century.

The development of services within a building caused a number of minor

changes to the regulations$ in response to the more intensive use of
heating and lighting. At a minor level one might note the increases

made in the width of chases in the party wall, in the Metropolitan

Building Act of 1855 (page 167). in response to an increase in the

amount of plumbing work: and an alteration tio the rule controlling

the distance of hot pipes from timber, according to the relative heat

of the pipes containing air, steam or hot water, again in the same
Act (Table 61 clause 21). Rather more serious was the omission of

rules to control gas lighting, which came into more general use in the

latter half of the century., and which ciused a fire hazard unanticipated
by the Metropolitan Building Act of 1855 (page 184). No rules were

made to cover this danger - which is surprising considering that rules

were made for hot water pipes, relatively a less hazardous source of
fire.

The house and warehouse were the two original areas of building
control. From the house form there evolved two further
regulation
types the shop and the office. The consequences for the regulations
-
from the development of the shop have already been noted in 1(d)

above. For offices, or 'chambers' as they were originally termedg

commerCial pressures succeeded in removing the threat the 63120

of

570
"shaving clause" (page 411) and the clause regulating the central
light well in tall blocks, from the London Building Act of 1894. Fire-

resisting construction for stairs and floors in premises over 2,500

sq. ft. were, however, maintained (page 409).

From the warehouse
'
regulations came the principle of*compartmentation, subdividing a
large space to prevent the spread of fire. In London, commercial
pressures again succeeded in increasing the volume of the compartment -
from 200,000 cu. ft. in 1844, to 216looo cu. ft. in 1855 and to
250,000 cu. ft. in 1894. Liverpool retained similar controls but,
because of the limits of the Public Health Acts, no such controls were
incorporated in the Model By-laws.

The early regulations had not anticipated the multiple use of a

building and the dangers, particularly from fire, which could result
from parts of one building being occupied by separate tenants.
Living rooms of flats above public houses, or over separately
tenanted shops, became more common. Living "over the shop" gradually
changed as people were prepared to live further away from their place

of work. For the regulations, the consequences can be seen in clause

74 of the London Building Act 1894 (Table 14, sheet 8)9 where the

'horizontal party floor' was introduced to separate domestic and trade

areas in buildings over 1000 sq. ft. in area (page 409).

Tenement blockst again with many sub-tenants, had a similar fire risk,

and fire-resisting construction for stairs and floors in buildings

over 1259000 cu. ft. and party walls in tenement blocks over 3,600 sq. ft.
in area were stipulated in the Metropolitan Building Act of 1855
(Table 69 sheet 6). Hotels, as a new building typeg broke through the

constraints of the domestic regulations andq in London, were treated

separately as 'public buildings'. Other new building typesq
such as
Exhibition buildings and railway systems, both exempt from the London
regulationsg established useful precedents for later legislation by
demonstrating in iron,
more ambitious
structures glass and concrete
(page 529). Finally, the increase in building height (as a result of
economic forcess the development of the skeleton frame structure and
the development of the lift) brought further legislation, -in three
important areas: firstjthe
relationship between building height and
the width of the street (page 411), secondly, an attempt to secure
adequate ventilation and daylight to the lowest rooms in the taller

571
buildings (page 372) and finally, to achieve adequate means of escape
in case of fire (page 522).

2c Advances-in-a more scientific understanding of buildin2 matters

Although the nineteenth century saw significant advances in experi-

ment, invention and scientific analysis, they made little impact on

buildings and what results there were filtered through only very

slowly into the building regulations. Traditional beliefs and

methods, the result of the latent conservatism noted earlier, were

the reasons for this. Changes were due to empirical deduction of the

observed phenomena, rather than to any rational analysis. But what

is interesting is the fact that there was an obvious realisation that

such rational and justifiable explanations were required. Many

curious patent systems for drainage and ventilation were supported

by a pseudo-scientific explanation. Listeners to Mr. Collins' talk

at the Institute of Health Exhibition in 1884 would have been

impressed to hear of the mysterious analysis of "ground air" by Dr.

Pettenkofer in Munich (page 298). Others could debate theories

endless

of daylight or the thickness of a wall or floor timbers seeking

support in the authority of Rondelet (page 97)- Others could propose

absurd heights of nonsense for the rules proposed in Sir William

Molesworth's Bill of 1855 (page 97).

Looking more closely at the problem of the wall thickness as an example,

one can see the embodiment of traditional thinking running right through

the century despite the obvious desire for a more rational approach.
Up to 1851, the thickness of a wall was determined simply by the
"ratet' of the building - that is, its type and area (pages 98,165)-
Theng after 1851, the proposal was mad6 for a finer distinction2 based

on the length, height and number of storeys and, in an effort to

simplify, the same rules were made to apply to both party and external

walls. These were then incorporated in the Metropolitan Building Act

of 1855 and subsequently transferred and incorporated in the Model

By-laws of 1877-

It was Joseph Boult from Liverpool who, in 1886, pointed out the

obvious fact that party and external walls had very different
functions, external walls being subject to weather and reduced in
.wý
strength by window openingsl party walls generally receiving extra

572
support from floor joists and cross walls. But, except for extending
the wall thickness schedule up to 1201011 in height, the scale of
dimensions in the London Building Act
of 1894 followed very closely
that of the Model By-laws of 1877 (compare Table 8 sheet 11 with
Table 14 sheet

Only at the very end of the period did evidence of a more scientific
analysis enter the field of building regulation. Two examples are
obvious - onel the increasing intervention of the structural engineer
in calculating the forces, (dead and live loads for instance), that

would determine the sizes of a steel or concrete framed structure

(page 521*)., and second, the work of the British Fire Prevention
Committee (page 513). The results of their earlyq and admittedly
crudeg tests on doors under fire conditions at their Fire Testing
Station in Bayswater in 1899, revealed alarming misconceptions which
had been incorporated in the London Building Act of 1894, and le-d to
their correction in the amendment Act of 1905 (pages 513-515)-

2d The effect of building disasters on the regulations

In certain cases it is possible to correlate a building disaster with
an alteration in the regulations. Liverpool, for example, amended
its Building Act following the major fire in Formby St. in 1841,
introducing as a result, stricter controls on the cubic size of ware-
houses and the extension of their party walls to 51011 above the roof.
The fire at the Mercer's Hall in London in 1853 was dueq so it was
claimedl to the proximity of hot pipes to the woodwork. As a result,

a revised clause was inserted in the Metropolitan Building Act in

1855 (pages 909 1689 187)- In the health field, the notorious Peel

Grove case had the almost immediate result in the passing of a special

national statute to deal with the problem of building over disused

burial (pages 298,352).

grounds

In general howeverl the pattern of cause and effect was less direct

and the interval between a disaster and the subsequent

and obviousq
legislation to prevent its occurrence was often lengthy. Consider,

for example, the succession of fires in London in the middle of the

Gilbert Street in 1858 (page 17l), Tooley Street
century - at or at
in 1861 (p 171), which resulted in major public enquiries and reports
for an amendment to the Building Act. Bills to achieve this
calling

573
were proposed, such as that of Colonel Sykes in 1862 (page 171), but

with no success. Again, there were a succession of fires in London

between 1897, at Cripplegate (see page 512), and 1902, at Queen

Victoria Street (page 515). which resulted in only a small amendment
to the Building Act's list of fire-resisting materials and, in 1905,

the additionof further provisions for fire*escape (page 515). The

reasons for these delays can be accounted forl once again, in the

familiar combination of the legislature's caution, the workings of

Parliament and the pressures of the 'vested interests'.

2e Influences from abroad

The two countries that provided the most useful lessons were France

and America. It was France's methods of concrete construction, of

fire-resisting construction and their control of the relationship
between building height and grander street widths that were

admiredg but there is no evidence of any direct influence on the

contents of the regulations, with the exception perhaps of the L. C. C.

reinforced concrete regulations of 1916 owing something to the

principles of the Hennebique Ferro-concrete system, since it was used

in the London General Post Office extension (page 529). For much

of the century howeverl the general English suspicion of French

techniques seems to have prevented their adoption in this country.

Looking to America however, the lessons were taken with more enthusiasm.
The New York Code of 1899 was a direct influence on the R. I. B. A. when

they prepared their Bill of 19(Y* to control frame structures (page 526).,

and the subsequent L. C. C. General Powers Act of 1909 incorporated steel

frame regulations that were the result of direct studies of American

made by the L. C. C. (page 527). Even Montreal's By-laws of

practice
1901 (page 517)., which controlled the distance between roofs and windows
had an influence on the clause controlling shop roofs which projected
in front of upper storey windows, in the London Building Act Amendment

Act of 1905-

2f The influence of the professions

Taking the professions in order of seniority, the first is the legal

Hereq it must be admitted, any Positive contributions are

profession.
difficult to Identify. The impression gained is of the maintenance of

a dead hand, apparent in the lethargic and tedious drafting of the

574
legislation. It is also clear that, as the century progressedg and
as the technicalities of building increased, the problems of inter-

pretation of the regulations became more difficult, reflecting the

lawyers lack of knowledge of building. This would have done little to

endear the building regulations to the legal profession - and in turn,

the legal profession will have done little to advance this branch of
legislation. This may be inferred from the remark associaýted with the

Metropolitan Board of Works new Bill of 1874. They wished to keep

the old style of language of the existing legislation "to avoid new
arising" (page 176).
questions

In contrast, the medical profession played a very significant role in

the early years of the building regulations, between 1840 and 1875.

It was then that nearly all the new 'health' rules - for space about
building, heights and drainage - were added to the older existing

rules for fire and stability. The strength of their cause was
partly by the mystery of their science (and in some critical
maintained
mattersg such as the transmittance of certain diseases by air, it was
dangerously wrong),, which could not be challenged, and partly by the

force of their spokesmen - Dr. Duncan, Sir John Simon and Dr. Liddle.,

for example. Many of the dimensional standards for the 'health'

regulations were decidedly weak, lacking any precise foundation, but

given the authoritative backing of the medical professiong they were

unquestioned and written into the regulations from an early date.

The architectural profession was less involved in the early formative

of the regulationsl whilst the medical profession were to the fore.

years
It was younger and smaller and whilst there were some architects,
John HansOm (page 68) and George Godwin (page 86), who foresaw
such as
the Implications for architecture from the development of the

regulationsl for the majority of architects the gulf between the art

architecture and the regulation of insanitary slums was wide

of
enough to cause them little concern. They were generally conservative
in their discussions of building regulation matters - as their desire

to retain the old "rating" system to determine wall thicknesses, as

(page 98). But they later came to this
late as 1851, reveals regret
and rather distant stance of these early years - for it
conservatism
then that the 'health' reg ulations were introduced, and it was the
vas ,
$health' regulationswhich were to cause the greatest controversy in

575
later years - for example, the conflict between high ceilings required
by the regulations and the low rooms required by a revival of the

vernacular style of architecture at the end of the century .

After 1875, the architectural profession assumed the leading Position

in all discussions on the building regulations. "The medical profession
have had a little too much their own way in framing these clauses"

said J. Mathews at the RIBA Conference in 1878 (page 270) -a con-

ference whichl significantly, was largely devoted to discussing papers

on the Model By-laws and a General Building Act. The profession

maintained this position for the rest of the centuryt ably represented
by men like Mathews) Thomas Blashill, Arthur Cates and Lacy Ridge.

only occasionally were there any lapses - such as when the over-
domination of the R-I. B. A. by its London members revealed itself in

their proposals to extend the party wall controls (from the London

Building Acts) to the Rural By-laws of 1901 (page 447), and when it

reacted to the implications of the frame structure regulations in

1909 (page 528)., which apparently threatened the autonomy of the

architect in structural design.

It in at this point, at the very end of the period, that the

structural engineer assumed an important positionj alongside that of

the architect. The steel and reinforced concrete frame regulations

that followed the L. C. C. (General Powers) Act of 1909 really mark

this event. They imply% in the complexity of the technical regulations

themselves, a division of knowledge and responsibilities and the

clearer separation of the two professions.

Finallyl mention must be made of the emergence of the municipal

and surveyors parallel to the growth of local government,

engineer
often desparate in his attempts to implement the building
yet
The voices of Ellice-Clarke and Lewis Angell (page 287)
regulations.
that desparation. More particularly, there was the distinctive
confirm
and positive contribution of the London District Surveyor - an

architect by training and more autocratic than his provincial counter-

Ile had, as it were, a foot in both the architectural and
part.
campst and the influence of his opinions - from men like
regulation
Alfred Bartholomew and George Godwing through to F. Banister-Fletcher

and Bernard Dickseel was important throughout the period (3)-

576
2g Influences from changes in architectural style
Direct correlation between changes in architectural style and changes
in the building regulations in the nineteenth century is difficult

to define precisely, but there are a number of instances where the

inference may be drawn with a reasonable degree of certainty.

The London Building Act of 1894 included clauses to allow the freer

use of oriel and bay windowsl wooden bargeboards, and to permit door

and window frames to be once again fixed flush with the outside face

wall (pages 399,407). This corresponds very closely

of an external
to the return of the 'Queen Anne' style in London's building after
1880, a style characterised by its informalityl asymmetry and free
interpretation of eighteenth century forms. To a revival of interest

in a grander, almost Baroquev Renaissance style at the end of the

centuryl one can attribute the changes made in the same act to free
from an incombustible covering (page 408), and more
wooden cornices
to allow cornices to project more freelyq the only
significantly,
being to cornices which projected over the public way
restrictions
(page 408).

The influence of the French Renaissance style, very much in fashion

the new Louvre of 1852, and, with its mansard roofq very
after
for including additional storeys in the roof, had an
suitable
influence on the London regulations. The style and form were part-

icularly appropriate to hotels - such as The Grosvenor and Langham,

the pattern for a number of buildings which sought additional

and set
floors above the legal limit of the maximum wall height. The number

in a roof had been controlled in the Metropolitan Building

of storeys
Act 1844, at one storey only, but then the clause was omitted from
of
the 1855 Act (page 195). Liverpool had tried to retain a single

in the roof in its Bill of 1869 (page 239). By 18949 the

storey
for using this device had, in London, resulted in two
pressures
being permitted (Table 14, sheet 4).
storeys

Further examples include the desire to break away from the Georgian

tradition of a proportion of approximately 50% between the solid and

in an external wall. Desparate attempts to secure greater and
void
less formal fenestrations particularly for shop windows, had led to

577
the otherwise unnecessary adjustment of the extent of the parapet or
basement walls, simply to balance the proportion as required by the

regulations. The 1874 Bill to amend the Metropolitan Building Act had

sought to use brick piers, to compensate for the reduction in actual

wall area (page 194), and by 1894, the London Building Act went some
way towards accepting these pressures by excluding the ground floor

storey (which might be all shop window) from this half void/half
solid rule.

A related topic was the prospect of the building regulations actually

regulating building design. To the older, and possibly more adamant

and established architect, such aesthetic control did not seem un-
desirable. (page 364). To Alfred Waterhouse for example, it would

only improve the appearance of London and confirm the acceptability

of the art of architecture. But in 1876 the R. I. B. A. had objected

strongly to the idea of submitting elevations as part of the building

submission (page 274). In 1889, Thomas Blashill

regulation spoke

out against legislation controlling design, since he was afraid that

any such legislation would kill a new style of architecture before

it could become established - and the desire for a new styleg a

national styles was constant in all architectural circles (page 358).

Furthermoreq when Dr. Longstaff of the L. C. C. sought advice from the

R. I. B. A. in 1893 on the best proportions for street widths and

building heights, (page 399), he received reply.

only a negative
Many architects feared any form of regulation which would in any way

,
impinge on their art of architectural design. There is a parallel

here with the contemporary movement in the profession which objected

to any form of examination of architectural design. Many, and

particularly those who supported Norman Shaw and Thomas Jackson in

their memorial "Architecture, a Profession or an Artltl of 1892,

would have felt the same way about the danger of aesthetic assessment

in both architectural examination and building regulation.

Finally, it is important to note the gradual assembly of a number of

topics which were to be later re-assembled and incorporated in the

discipline of town planning. The layout of streets in relation

new
to sunlight, and direction (pages 2779 360,349,397), the
gradientsq
for public open space (page 397), the
call problem of co-ordinating
buildings in relation to a building lineq and the relationship between

578
built height and form and the spaces between building - these were all
anticipated in the building regulation field, but found their

appropriate realisation in later town planning practice or legislation.

2h The influence of building journals and other publications

The coincidence in the growth of the weekly building journals,

particularly 'The Builder1g. and the development of the regulations

is significant. Here was a controversial subject which affected

nearly all its readers and, in the earliest period before illustrations

became easier to produce, the very detailed language of the regulations

could be fully covered in print. The early issues would print the

text of a proposed bill in full, with comment and explanation often

occupying the editorial and correspondence columns for a number of

successive weeks. A full analysis, such as the "Cyclopaedia of the

Metropolitan Building Act of 184411 was published as a supplement to

'The Builder'by Bartholomew in 1844 (4), and againg there was a

giving a full account of the later Act in 1855 (5)-

supplement

But later issues would refrain from printing the full text, partly

because of the length of the later regulationsPand partly because

the lack of space in the journal as the range of interests, and

of
illustratiofts, increased. It was also assumed that the interested reader

would have bought his own copy of the published Act. In the analysis

the Iondon Building Act of 1894, for example, 'The Builder' did
of .

not print the full text of the Act itself.

The of an illustrated annotated explanatory book - such as

popularity
Annotated Model By-laws (see Bibliography) was confirmed by
Knight's

the succession of editions, and the increase in the detailed

rapid

within each volume - and it reflected, of course, the

commentary

complexity of the original Model By-law document itself. It

growing
as a medium for unofficially confirming various changes in
also acted

the by-lawsq changes which the Local Government Board would accept,

had not been incorporated in a revised official set. (The

but which
of 1883 and 1890, Tables 9 and 10 respectively, are
regulations
of these unofficial "Model" by-laws).
examples

579
This third section moves closer to the pattern and content of the
building regulations themselves and examines the significant factors

under the following broad headings:

a) precedent, standardizations the pattern of linkages between

the regulation and highlights within that pattern,

b) respective merits of the by-law and statute as a means of

control,
C) the grouping of the regulations in topics,

d) direct controlsq and interrelated or variable controlsq and

e) exceptions, restrictions and omissions.

3a Precedent, standardization, pattern of linkages-between the

regulations and highlightswithin that pattern

Precedent was used whenever possible in the evolution of the building

regulations. The reasons for this have already been discussed - they

include the benefit of experience gained by application of the earlier

and desire to ease the work of the legislatureq to ease their

rules,
introduction, avoid controversy and facilitate their implementation

in practice.

In a similar way, standardization was used whenever possible. Chapter

III discussed the "Normal" Act, the Preliminary Enquiries Act, the

Parliamentary Committees in rationalising proposed bills and

role of
of individual towns copying each others regulations.
gave examples
The focus of these trends was the Clauses Acts, and in the case of

building regulation, it was the Towns Improvement Clauses Act of

1847 which was therefore the key statute in this respect. It was
it model clauses for insertion in any local
a Model - contained
improvement act, establishing a precedent for local by-laws to

insert Model By-laws some thirty years later.

The importance of London and Liverpool has already been mentioned

the first part of this concluding chapter. In terms the Acts

in
themselves, their relationship with the evolving pattern
and regulations
the by-laws was very important. Taking London first,
of provincial
building regulation dating back to 1189 (6), the
with a history of
through the London Building Act of 1774 (where many basic
links came
can be traced, including roof coverings, rainwater
regulations

580
disposal off roofs and party walls) and on into the basic framework

of Lord Normanby's Bills of 1841. The Health of Towns Report of

1840 had recognised the need to maintain the traditional matters of
the earlier Building Acts whilst the new health measures were
incorporated (page 27). The 1774 Act and Lord Normanby's Bills of
1841 became the basis for the major Metropolitan Building Act of
J844, and that, in turng the basis for the Metropolitan Building Act

of 1855. Three years laterg the first Form of By-laws in 1858 bore

striking similarities to both the Metropolitan Building Act of 1855

and the Towns Improvement Clauses Act of 1847. Finallyl the

Metropolitan Building Act 1855 and the Form of By-laws 1858 formed
the basis for the 'first' Model By-laws of 1877.

Liverpool, marking its rejection of Lord Normanby's Bills, produced

its own Building Act in 1842 - based again on the precedents of its

earlier Acts of 18259 1835 and 1839. They are important for their

early inclusion of regulations to control the sizes of floor and roof

timbers, though their direct influence was not felt in the provincial
Model By-laws until 1890 (see below). Liverpool's Amendment Act
and

of 1843 (page 185) was important both for its compartmentation of

and also for its use of retrospective powers before

warehouses - well
the only other example discovered, that of the London Building Act

(Amendment) Act of 1905. It played an important part also in 1864

when the Bill to amend the Metropolitan Building Act of 1855 was

being discussed in relation to the fire-resisting construction of

(page 180).
warehouses

Towards the end of the century, Liverpool's influence returned. The

improvement Act of 1882 dealt with hearths, concrete walls and supports

to in external walls, ahead of the Model by-laws (page 293)

openings
the Improvement Act of 1888, which still retained the timber
and
in almost exactly the same form as those of 1842, was used
controls
basis for the timber controls in the Model By-laws 1890.
as the of
The 450 angle for determining the relationship between building height

and open space at the rear was formulated by the Surveyor, Goldstraw,

in 1890yand it acted as the basis for a similar rule in the London

Building Act of 1894, although it was modified to 63210 (page 304).

The use of reinforced concrete was recognised in the Liverpool General

Powers Act of 1908 (page 471). just ahead of London, although it must

581
be noted that reinforced concrete did obtain a fleeting mention in
the Intermediate Model By-laws of 1905.

Finally, London resumed its dominant position at the end of the century.
The Building Act of 1894 drew, naturally, on its predecessor of 18559

and also, more interestingly, on the Model By-Laws of 1877. At the

very end of the period, the fire escape provisions in the amending Act

of 1905 and the steel and reinforced concrete provisions of 1909 and
1916 respectivelyq confirmed London's leading position.

The diagram on the following page is a simplified summary listing the

more significant Acts and By-laws, bringing out the major

links between them and, as a contrast, examples of minor topics which
link across from one set of regulations to another.

Whilst the diagram-is over simplified, it does help to show the

importance of the Form of By-laws of 1858, as the focus of much of
the preceding legislation and as the direct precursor of the Model

By-laws of 1877. The link to the Metropolitan Building Act of 1855

is revealing - it marks the first effective link (unlike the abortive

bills of Lord Normanby) between London's legislation and a set of

provincial 'Model' by-laws.

The 1858 Form of By-laws was howeverg far from perfect. The range
its regulations was erratic and inconsistent (pages 225-7). One
of
suspects that Tom Taylor and his assistants in the Local Government

Act office were unsure how far they could go in producing a non-

mandatory model document. The tone of the covering letter would seem
to confirm that the clauses were to be confined to "points of general
and that they were issued "solely in the way of suggestion"
application"
(page 224). Nevertheless, despite-that caution, the Form was used as
Doncaster and Bradford both followed it for example (page
a model -
230) but equally, it was to prove to be something of a false dawn,
-
later frustrated by the discovery legal
as its objectives were of
limitations in the wording of the Local Government Act of 1858
(page 233)_

3b Respýctive merits of the by-law and statute in building regulation

The merits of the two main types of regulation - statutory act or

582
I I II

G OF LINES OFFLUES
PAINTIN

PARTY FENCE WALLS

0

BRICK COPINGS TO WALLS

E .
I
cr. x10
S cl)
-0 HEARTHS
62

CL,
ROO HEIGHTS,

IL

0
En
r_

go I

cc m
cý
"
*Li
-c3 11 I
s 11
d: x - -

21 INN

+
wm ---4m-
1 !L3 T "1 Ln to
co Z! c%j " c%j
c; " rn to
z

L41 L3
43 cn
C)
t
G:
-cc .2 Ln = !!!
C', L) cn 0 c:3 u
;.-, cn ca c
u c"
u
ý
E' 9: co : m- tm u
C,
gi
3: 0 on
w w
3: w c
ax : 1-

03 ca 0. !L.
m :.. cc G CL)
ca E CJ co
Rr 0 m -
CL 0
co Ca.
C3
0
E r- -0 Cm
c* qr co C3 ,C, Z; Ln
C
C, 45 g -CL) ;;
z; Lo "o r- .0 E
-:r 3: - -CL)
Ln -0 Ln C, CC) cm E cr) -73 0
= cr, * cr) cz,
- c" = r- = -0 C%j
ar ;
em cc) o co co 2 r;
C. ) La.

TO MODELBY-LAWS1331ý61,
and135'2'1

TO LONDONBUILDING
ACT$1930.1136 1339
@ad

22 LINKS TO SUBSEQUENT
cc uJ POST 1914 BUILDING REGULATIONS
cc
La =)
CCC3

583
by-laws made under powers contained in a statute - may be summarized
as follows: The Act could be specially tailored to suit the require-
ments of a particular towN but it was expensive to obtain, difficult
to compose legally (though the use of model clauses was an aid) and
very difficult and expensive to alters since it necessitated recourse
to Parliament for a fresh amendment Act. The by-law on the other hand

was relatively easier to produce, using the Model as a guides and,

although it could in theory be altered to suit local conditions it

was, as-noted earlierv constrained both by the Local Government Board

and the Statute under which it was made. The Board were reluctant to

admit many variations from their model, and the wording of the main
Act could be a severe restriction. A clear case of this was the
wording of the critical section 157 of the Public Health Act 1875 -
at the time by the architect Arthur Cates (page 275)
noted - which
prevented by-laws being made for hearths, and a vertical damp proof

course in a basement wall, since they were not legally part of the
'structure'.

The pattern that emerges is of the early domination of the Local Act,

or improvement Actj often based on the Towns Improvement Clauses Act,

and holding its own from 1840 to the mid century (although some towns,

notably London and Liverpool, and also Leicester and Bristol)

continued to operate their own 'local' Building Acts throughout most

of the century. After the 18501s, the local by-law becomes the main

medium for building regulation. Even London introduced by-laws for

streets in 1857 and for aspects of building in 1877 (page 345), in

spite of some anxiety amongst the London architects at the possible

misuse of power by the Metropolitan Board of Works, as they drafted

and implemented the by-laws without recourse to Parliament. In London

and Liverpool however, the apparent rigidity of the Building Act

tempered by the powers the District Surveyor
was to some extent of -
independent and liberal than the powers possessed by
,which were more
his counterpart in the provincial towns operating the by-laws.

The important turning point in the move from local Act to local by-

law is marked by the Report of the Royal Sanitary Commission of 187,

(page 245),, who came out in favour of the by-law rather than the Act

as the best means of building regulation - and this was largely due

to the evidence given by Robert Rawlinson, Chief Inspector of the

584
Local Government Act office, in 1870 (page 253).

3c The Grouping of the regulations in topic

Throughout the period, the regulations in both the Acts and the by-
laws were always grouped under general topic headings - relating to

streets, wall structure, space about buildings, drainage etc. This

was obviously convenient in that it gave order to the regulations

and no doubt was appreciated by the legislature, both in drafting
the regulations and identifying and implementing them in the courts.
But from the builder and architects'point of view it had one draw-

back. It bore no relation to the sequence of design and construction

or inspection, and only rarely to the actual interaction which
occurs between the many component parts of a building. This is even
more apparent today - but its sources can be seen in the nineteenth
century. Roof and soil drainage came within separate groups for

example indeed, in London, they came under separate Acts for a

-
period (the Metropolitan Building Act 1855 for roofsq the Metropolis

Local Management Act of the same year for soil drainage).

3d Direct controls, and interrelated or variable controls

The move in the nature of the building regulations from direct, one-
to-one controls to more variable and interrelated controls is one of
the more interesting and important developments in the nineteenth

century. It marks, albeit in still simple terms, a move towards a

more sophisticated technique of control.

Wall thicknesses had a limited variable control at the opening of the

period. In the Metropolitan Building Act of 1844, domestic buildings

were classed in four 1rates'q according to heights, area and number

and the wall thicknesses were determined accordingly.
of storeys -
By 1855, this had altered and eased, the wall thicknesses now having

a wider scale of permutations, reflected not only to the height and

of storeys, but also to the length of the wall. Furthermore,
number
was now given to the additional support offered by floor
recognition
joists and cross walls, and the schedule of thicknesses could be
further in the light of these additional supports.
modified

The size of open yards to houses was set in the Metropolitan Building

Acts at 100 sq. ft, regardless of the height of the adjoining

585
properties. By 1858, the Form of By-laws introduced the important

concept of relating the distance across the yard to the number of

storeys in the adjacent house. By the time of the Model By-laws of

18779 it was determined by the height of the house. In London in

1882 the open space increased in area according to the length of the

frontage the house (Table 12, sheet 1); by 18909 the Model By-laws
of

were prepared to permit the shape of the yard to be adjusted to suit

conditions (Table 10, sheet 5), and by 1894, the London

actual site
Building Act introduced the 63210 'shaving clause' to control the form

of the adjacent building in relation to the yard.

The Metropolitan Building Act of 1844 controlled the size of footings

under walls by specifying the size of the projections to either side

the base the wall (Table 49 sheet 10). By the time of the next
of of
Act, in 1855, a general formula had been introduced (Table 6, sheet 9),
formula, relating the size of the footings to the
and this general
thickness of the wall and in turn facilitating the calculation of the

footings for the wider range of wall thicknesses (see above), was

taken and incorporated in the Model By-laws of 1877 (Table 89 sheet 14).
on

3e Exceptionsq Restrictions and Omissions

There are a number of miscellaneous and minor points which can be

brought together here - all characterised by their
conveniently
negative properties.

Legislative restrictions included the following: There was, not - and

indeed there never has been - an adequate legal definition of a

"building" that was the object of the legislation. There was

- yet
doubt. Was a building on wheels, with no
always a fringe area of

foundations in the ground, actually a building? Was a framework

to support a stack of timber, an obvious fire hazard of some

erected
without walls, floor or roof, legally a building?
size, yet

a difficulty in interpretation. The definition of

There Was also
as shown alreadys prevented the making of by-laws for
'structure'
vertical damp proof coursesl or 'sound and solid' prevented
hearths and
suitable hollow bricks. More fundamental was
the use of otherwise
defining "rebuilding". 'Warehouses that burnt almost
the problem of

could apparently be rebuilt on their old foundations

to the ground

586
party walls between them (page 194).
without proper

And then there was the restriction of the legislature's language,

the unacceptable idea of using a diagram rather than words in a legal

documentq the resistance to any retrospective legislation. and the

tendency for regulations to become fossilized within a succession

by-laws. Many regulations, admirable when first introduced,

of acts or
long their welcome and were difficult to remove. The rule
outstayed
the an openable window area to the floor area (not
relating size of

content of room) remained until 1965. The controls on ashpits

cubic

survived until 1976.

The regulations were always basically negative - they assumed the

provision of all the common ingredients in a building and then

proceeded to control a selection which came within their terms of

potential danger, from health, fire or stability. But, as was noted

in 1881, the regulations never said that a new house need actually
(page 287)., and
have a floor, or a door, or a window, or plumbing

there therefore anomolies and unexplained omissions. Room

were
but (except for Liverpool
heights may have been controlled, and

towns at the end of the period) never room areas. Roof

other
were always controlled, to ensure the restriction of the
coverings
fire, but not (except in Liverpool and the Model By-laws
spread of
1890) the actual construction of the roof structure underneath
after
that covering.

Finally, a number of building types were outside the building

altogether. Royal Palaces, gaols and session houses

regulations
had some justification for exclusion on grounds of security -
may have
but it is hard to accept that lunatic asylums, railway and dock build-

ings, buildings, schools and government offices "authorized

exhibition
by the Secretary of State" did not have as much potential danger to

the as the house, warehousel shop or qffice. There was

public
however an indirect benefit from the exclusion of certain buildings.

The London railway terminals and the Crystal Palace of 1851 both

structural feats in iron and glass beyond the restraints

demonstrated
(page 170)yand the Admiralty, War Office and G. P. O.
of the regulations
offered an opportunity for the Potential of reinforced con-
extension
be more fully exploited (pages 72,1639 218,95).
crete to

587
The legacy from the nineteenth century
The preceding sections have identified and discussed the implications

of the more significant factors which influenced the evolution of the

building regulations in the nineteenth century. These final pages
review the principal elements which constitute the legacy we have
inherited.

By 19141 all the main building regulations that were considered

essential for the safety of the general public had been established -
even though they were not in one document and nor were they in

operation everywhere. The regulations relating to fire and stability,

inherited from the eighteenth centuryq had been brought up to date

and the regulations concerning matters of health had been incorporated.

Over this period of 75 years, the regulations had developed from the

primitive level of the 1840's to a degree of sophistication which was

revealed in the steel and reinforced concrete regulations of 1909 and

1916. Despite their many shortcomingsl it must be acknowledged that

this represented a substantial achievement.

The consequences of this important period in the history of the

building regulations are summarized in the following paragraphs - the

first three reflecting on the more beneficial aspectsl the last three

on those that were more deleterious.

Firstq to their credit, the nineteenth century building regulations

did their initial aim-that ist they achieved a satisfactory

achieve
level control over the health of the public in relation to buildings.
of
It an effort of the imagination to accept this, as the
may require

many parts of our present towns is by no means perfect. But

state of
the grim state of the townsl as revealed in the Report on
remembering
the of Health of Towns in 1840 for example, it has to be
state
that without the building regulations and their basic
acknowledged
in securing a modicum of space about buildings and effective
achievements
drainage, the dangers of disease would not have been averted.

Secondlyl by their very precise terminology, and with the support of

books, such as those of Charles Knightq the nineteenth
explanatory
building regulations must be credited with achieving and
century
a basic yet acceptable level of sound building construction.
maintaining

588
Backed by the force of law the regulations acted as a mechanism to

tighten and maintain standards. This is confirmed by the inclusion

many of the regulation requirements in building construction text

of
books of the time M-

Thirdly, although they were not to become the appropriate medium, the

building regulations of the nineteenth century paved the way for the

introduction of town planning controls. There was an area of

easier
here many of the regulations relating to space about
overlap -
buildings, building height, street widths and building lines are now

seen to be more appropriately a part of the town planning legislation.

But by facing a number of the indirect pressures at a much earlier

as the problem of interference with private property and

stage - such
the power of the 'vested interest' as described in the first part of
this chapter the early building regulations did a service for the
-
future of town planning in helping to break down much of the initial

resistance and inertia.

On the debit sideq the nineteenth century regulations had the following

less beneficial consequences. The first was the well known phenomena

termed 'By-law housing'. The minimum standards of the regulations

became, in the eyes of the speculative builderg synonymous with the

It was inevitableg given the motives of maximum density and

maximum.
the lack of planning controls, but it was never the direct
profit, and

intention the by-laws to promote the monotonous grid layouts of

of
housing estates. The regulations did not say that
the by-law street
had to be straight, nor laid out regardless of contour or
the street
that the houses should be identical and repeated in long
aspect, nor
They were 'healthy' and adequately built, but bleak and drab
terraces.
Yet they served, in turn, the useful purpose as the
in appearance.
which the more liberal and imaginative ideas of the garden
target against

could be aimed.
city movement

Secondlyq the slow and piecemeal process of growth, on an unscientific

under the control of a legal profession which was not over-
basis and
with the world or practice of building, left a legacy of
familiar
complicated and often archaic regulations. Embodied
many rigidq
firmly in the legislationg they were repeated again and again in
yet often with very little amendment. Many
successive editionst

589
clauses remained virtually intact from the Model By-laws of 1877 to

well into the present century. Model By-law No 53 of 1877 required

an open space 241011 wide in front of a house, except for erections

up to 7'0" in height - precisely the same requirements were repeated

in Model By-law No 68 in 1953-

Finally, for the reasons already discussed, the nineteenth century

failed to achieve a national Building Act - something which even now

is only just in sight. In an age which was concerned with promoting

a national imageq and in architecture the idea of a new national style

desparately sought, It is revealing to see how far back and at
was
times how near this country came to achieving a national Building

Act. There was a call for a 'General Building Act' in the Health of
Towns Report of 1840 and Lord Normanby's first Bill of 1841 was
intended to apply to the whole countryq but the tension between local

and central control was always sufficiently strong to prevent any

measure succeeding. That mood of the nineteenth century left

national

a permanent mark on the present century and explains why it took until

1965 for a national set of Building Regulations to be achieved - but

then tradition was maintained and London was allowed to continue

even
the operation of its own Building Acts.
with

590
NOTES TO CONCLUSION

A. V. Diceyl "The Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England

during the Nineteenth Century", London, 1905, Second edition
1934- p-34.
2. D-J. Olsenq "The Growth of Victorian London1l, London, 1976. P-155-
"The History iluilding
3- C. C. Knowles and P. H. Pitt, of Regulations
in London 1189-1972", London 1972. PP 152-154ki for the full list
the London District Surveyors in the nineteenth
of names of
century.
(The names of the following may be selected on account of their
wider significance in the history of Victorian architecture:
Alfred Bartholomew, Charles Fowler, George Godwin, Edward I'Ansonq
F. Bani ster-Fl etcher I Thomas Blashill , Robert Kerrj T. Roger Smith
and Rowland Plumbe). -
4. Supplement to 'The Builder'.
B. Vol. 2 No. 92 9 Nov. 1844 (20 pages)
5. Supplement to 'The Builder'
655 25 Aug 1855 (8
B. Vol. 13 No pages)
6. C. C. Knowles and P. IL Pitt - op. cit
7. For example: Rivington's Series of Notes on Building Construction ion.
4 volumesq Londonj 1875. Revised editions 1883 and 1891.

591
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Section I

Me principal Parliamentary Papers relevant to this study: -

1840 Vol. XI Report of the Select Committee on the Health of

Towns.

1842 Vol. XXVI Report of the Poor Law Commission on the Sanitary
Condition the Labouring Fopulation
of of Great
Britain.

1842 Vol. X Report of the Select Committee on the Regulation of

Buildings and the Improvement _
Boroughs.
of
1844 Vol. XVII First Report of the Royal Commission for Inquiring
into the State of Large Towns and Populous
Districts.

1845 Vol. XVIII Second report of the Royal Commission for I nquiring
into the State of Large Towns and Populous
Districts.

1868-9 Vol-XXXII First Report of the Royal Sanitary Commission.

1871 Vol-XXXV Second Report of the Royal Sanitary Commission.

1884-5 Vol-XXX Report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of

and Vol-XXXI the Working Classes.

1859-1871 Annual Reports from the Secretary of State from the

Home Department to Parliament on the execution of
the Local Government Act 1858.

1871 onwards Annual Reports of the Local Government Board.

1910 Vol-XXXVIII Report on Back-to-back houses by Dr. L. W. Darra

Muir to the Local Government Board.

1912-3 Vol-XXIX Report of the Local Government Board Departmental

Committee_appointed_to Inquire (into) intercepting
Traps in House Drains.

1918 Vol-VII Report of the Local Government Board Departmental

Committee on the Building Bye-laws.

1918 Vol-VII Report of the Committee on Questions of Building

Construction in Connection with the Provision of
Dwellings for the Working Classes. (Tudor Walters
Report)

592
Section II

The principal journals and periodicals used as sources for this study: -

The Times

Hansard

The Builder

Transactions, Proceedings and Journal of the Royal Institute of British

Architects

Justice of the Peace

Proceedings of the Institute of Municipal and County Engineers

Quarterly Review

Fortnightly Review

Nineteenth Century

Contemporary Review

Architectural Review

593
Section III

This lists the majority of the books and pamphlets relating to building

regulations which were published between 1825 and 1916.

AINGER, A. The Building Act with Notes and Cases. London,

1836.
Suggestions towards an Amendment of the Building
Acts. London, 1825.
The Building and other Acts relating to Building.
London, 1836.

ALBRECHT, (?, ) Allgemeine Bauordnung fur Stadte und

Landgemeinden. Hanover, 1877.

ANDREWS, E. S. The Reinforced Concrete Regulations of the L. C. C.

and explanatory notes. London, 1916.
ANGELL, J. A. and MORLEY, J. G. Practical Guide to Sanitary
legislation. London, 1895.
ASHPITEL# A. and WHICHCORD, J. Fireproof Houses in Flats. London,
1855.

BARDWELL, W. What a House should be, versus Health in the

House. London, 1873.

BARTHOLOMEW, A. Cyclopaedia of the new Metropolitan Building Act.

London, 1844.

BEAUMONT, A. Hints for Preventing Damage by Fire in the

construction and warming of Buildings. London,
1835.

BLYTH, A. W. A manual of Public Health. London, 1891.

BOULT, J- Remarks on the Liverpool Building Act. Liverpool,

1856.
The Structural Requirements of the Fire
Prevention Acts and of other similar regulations
within the Borough of Liverpool. Liverpool,
1869.

BRAIDWOOD, J. Fireproof buildings. London, 1850.

Fire Prevention and Fire Extinction. London,
1866.

BOWIE, J. Healthy Homes. London, 1854.

BUCKTON, C. M. Our Dwellings, healthy and unhealthy. London,

1885.

Builders Society. Acts regulating Buildings, etc., in the

Metropolis. London, 1856.

Building By-laws Reform. Report. London, 1904.

-Association.

CHAMBERS, G. F. Hints on S itary Law. London, 1884.

A popular summary of Public Health and Local
Government Law. London, 1875.
The Law relating to Public Health and Local
Government. London, 1888.

594
CHAMBERS, T. and TATTERSHALL, G. The Laws relating to Building, etc.
London, 1845.

CHANCE, W. Building By-laws in Rural Districts. London,

1914.

CLIFFORD, F. History of Private Bill Legislation. London,

1885.

COHEN, E. A. The London Building Acts 1894-1905. London,

1906.

COLLINS, H. H. Suggestions relative to some defects in the

Metropolitan Building Act as applied to Dwelling
Houses. London, 1873.
Hints on Home Sanitation. London, 1881.

COOK, E. R. An Act to amend the Laws relatingto the

Construction of Buildings in the Metropolis etc.
London, 1856.

COX, H. Law and Science of Ancient Lights. London,

1869.

CRAIES, W. F. The London Building Act 1894. London, 1894.

CRESWELL, C. E. Ventilation of Sewers and Drains. London, 1884.

CUBITT, H. A Treatise on the Law and Practice of Building

in London. London, 1911.
The London Building Law and the Development of
Property. London, 1912.

DAVID, A. J. The London Building Act 1894. London, 1894.

DEMPSEY, G. D. On the Drainage of Towns and Buildings. London,

1849.

DICKSEEr B. The London Building Act 1894. London, 1894.

second edition 1905; third edition 1908.

District Surveyors Association The London Building Acts 1894-1909.

Skeleton frame buildings.... deposit of drawings
and calculations with the District Surveyor.
London, 1911.
L. C. C. (General Powers) Bill 1890. Resolutions
made in 1890. (see also Fowler, C. 1869. )

DONALDSON, W. L. Offices and Duties of a District Surveyor.

London, 1856.

DRYSDALE, J. and HAYWARD, J. H. Health and Comfort in House Building.

London, 18727.

EASSIE# W. Healthy houses. A Handbook to the History,

Defects and Remedies of Drainage etc. London,
1872.

EDWARDS, F. The Ventilation of Dwelling Houses. London,

1881.

ELLICE-CLARKE, E. B. Further Remarks on the Ventilation of Sewers.

Liverpool, 1878.

EMDEN, A. Metropolitan Management and Building Acts

(amendment) Acts. London, 1882.

595
FLETCHER, London Building Act 1894.
Ist edition. London, 1895.
2nd if 11 1901.
3rd 1905.
4th 1907.
5th 1909.
Metropolitan Building Acts 1855-1882. London,
1882.
Light and Air. London, 1895.

FOWLER, C. Metropolitan Building Act 1855. Abstract of

reports, cases, etc. (District Surveyors
Association). London, 1869.

FOX, H. H. and BARRETT, G. Construction of Public Buildings and

Private Dwellings on a Fireproof Principle
without increase in cost. London, 1849.

FREEMAN, A. C. The Architects Guide to the L. C. C. (General

Powers) Act 1909. London, 1910.

GACHES, L. Guide to the Public Health Act 1875. London,

1875.

GALTON, D. Observations on the Construction of Healthy

Dwellings. Oxford, 1880.

GATLIFF, C. Improved- ellings and their Effect on Health and

Morals. London, 1875.

GIBBONS, D. and HESKETH, R. The Metropolitan Building Act with notes,

index and engravings. London, 1855.

GIBBONS, D. Metropolitan Building Act 1844. London, 1844.

GLENt W. C. The Duties of Vestrymen, Members of District and

Metropolitan Board of Works and Offices under the
Metropolis Management Act and the Metropolitan
Building Act 1855. London, 1856.
The Law relating to Public Health and Local
Government, in relation to sanitary and other
matters. London, 1858. (and later editions. )'

GLEN# R. C. and W. C. The Metropolitan Building Acts 1855-1882. London,

1883.

GLEN, R. C. and BETHUNE, A. A. The Law regulating Streets and Buildings

in the Metropolis jLnder the London Building Act
1894 and other Metropolitan Statutes. London,
1895.

GODWIN, G. Town Swamps and S2cial Bridges. London, 1859.

GOLDSTRAWr W. A Manual of the Building Regulations in force in

the City of Liverpool. 2 vols. Liverpool, 1902.

GRANTHAM, R. F. The Separate System of Sewerage. London, 1886.

GRIFFITHSO W. R. A Collection of the Statutes regulating Building

within London. London, 1893.

GRIFFITHSý W. R. and PEMBER, F. W. London Building Act 1894. London,

1895.

HALL, J-C- Facts which prove the Immediate Necessity of

Sanitary Reform. second edition. London, 1848.

596
HELLYER, S. S. The Plumber and Sanitary Houses. London, 1884.
HENMAN, W. A Plea for the Reform of the Principle on which
the Building By-laws are founded. London, 1904.

HESKETH, R. An Enquiry as to the method which it is most

advisable to adopt in the Metropolitan Buildiny,
Bill for regulating the thickness of walls.
London, 1854-5.
Synopsis of the Metropolitan Building Act.
London, 1844.

HILL; 0. Homes of the London Poor. London, 1883.

HOOD, C. Practical Treatise on Warming Buildings by Hot

Water. London, 1855.

HOLE, J. Homes of the Working Class. London, 1866.

HOLT, H. G. Fire Protection in Buildings. London, 1913.

1
HORNBLOWER, L. Improvements in the construction of Fireproof
Buildings. London, 1874.

HORSFALL, T. C. The Improvement of dwellings and surroundings of

the people : the example of Germany. Manchester,
1904.

HOSKINGO W. Guide to the Proper Regulation of Buildings in

towns as a means of Promoting and securing the
Health, Comfort and Safety of the Inhabitants
..
London, 1848.

HUDSON, A. A. and INMAN, A. The Law of Light and Air. London,. 1898.

HUTCHINS, B. L. The Public Health Agitation 1833-1848. London,

1909.

INMAN, W. On Ventilation, Warming and Transmission of Sound.

London, 1836.

JASCHKE, C. and SEYDEL, F. Preussische Baupolizeigesetze. -, 1882.

JENSEN, G. J. C. By-laws as to House Drainage and Sanitary Fittings.

London, 1901. (second edition, 1908. )
JEPHSON# H. Sanitary Evolution of London. London, 1907.

JOHNSON, C-W- The Acts promoting the Public Health 1848-51

to which _for
is added the practice of the-General and
Local Boards of Health, with co pious notes and
tables. London, 1852.

JONES, H. C. and WALLACE, G. London Streets and Bui ldings Bill :a

handy ,
abstract of the clauses. London, 1894.

JUDGEv M. Sanitary Arrangement of Dwellin g Houses. London,

1884.

KEEN, F. N. Local Legislation 1909-1911. London, 1912.

Local Legislation 1909-1913. London, 1914.
KERRO R. On Ancient Lights. London, 1865.
The Consulting Architect. London, 1886.
Knight, C. (publisher) Annotated Modelby-laws. Ist edition.
London, 1883.

597
2nd edition. London, 1885.
3rd 11 1890.
4th it 1893.
5th tv 1897.
6th 1899.
7th 1905.

LANCHESTER, H. J. How to make a House Healthy and Comfortable.

London, 1873.

LANKESTER, E. Notes for a History of Sanitary Legislation.

London, 1867.

LATHAM, B. Sanitary Engineering, a Guide to the Construction

of Works of Sewerage and House Drainage. 2nd.
edition. London, 1878.

LATHAM, F. L. Treatise on the Law of Window Light. London,

1867.

LAW, H. and CLARK, D. K. The Construction of Roads and Streets.

London, 1877.

LAWESO E. Proceedings under the Metropolitan Building Act.

London, 1846.

Laxton, (Publ. ) Builders Price Books - each edition contains the

London Building Act and explanatory notes and
description of cases.

LAXTON, F. W. The Metropolitan Building Act... and notes of cases

explanatoryof its law and practice, etc. London,
1855.

LEPAGE, S. Lois des Batiments. 2 vols. Paris, 1822.

LEUTHOLDO C. E. Sachsisches_Baupolizeirrecht. Leipzig, 1879.

Liverpool Report of Special Sub Committee of the Liverpool

Architectural and Archaeological Society on
Proposed Amendments to the Building Act. (refers
to the Bill of 1852-3). Liverpool, 1869.
Report on the Model By-laws. Liverpool Archi-
tectural and Archaeological Society. Liverpool,
1877.

LOVE, C. H. The Tribunal of Appeal under the London Building

Act 1894. Manual for Appellants. London, 1900.

LOVEGROVE$ H. Some Account of the District Surveyors Association.

London, 1906.

Local Government Board Model Building By-laws. 1877,1904,1912.

Rural Model Building By-laws 1901, Intermediate
Model Building By-laws 1905.

Lockwoodt (publ. ) Price Book (contains London Building Act) London,

1895 and 1897.

London County Council The Housing Question in London 1855-1900.

edited by C. J. Stewart. London, 1900.

LOWER, E. W. The Metropolitan Building Act notes and

.... with
other suggestions. London, 1855.

LUCAS, R. M. and MARSHALL, T. W. Anti-Building By-laws : Suggestions

for Reform. Southampton, 1906.

598
LUMLEY, W. G. An Essay on By-laws : with an Appendi? S containina
Model By-laws issued by the Board of Trade,
Education Dept. and Local Government Board.
London, 1877.
The Public Health Act 1875. Annotated. London,
1875.

McGOWENj T. Sanitary Legislation, with Illustrations from

Experience in Liverpool. Liverpool, 1859.

MacMORRAN, A. and NALDRETT, E. J. Public Health (London) Act 1891.

London, 1910.

MacKENZIEj W. and HANDFORD, P. Model By-laws as to Nuisances and

New Streets and Buildings. London, 1904.

Manchester So ciety of Architects P er with Reference to By-laws

..
Manchester, 1876.

Mansion House Council for the dwellings of the Poor. The London
Health Laws :a Manual the Law - the
of afi ecting
Houses and Sanitary Conditi of London.. London,
1894.

MARSH, C. F. Reinforced Concrete. London, 1904. (refers to

Continental and American Regulations)

MARSLANDO E. Rules and Regulati2ns affecting Building Operations

in the Metropolis. London, 1888.

MERRYWEATHER, J. C. Fire Protection of Mansions. London, 1881.

Metropolitan Board of Works Regulations for the Construction of

Concrete Buildings under the Metropolitan Building
Act 1855. London, 1882.

MOLLEY, R. C. London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1905 London,

1906.

MORROW, F. St Building Cases. London, 1906.

-J.
MULLER, W. Baurecht in den Landrecgtlichen Gebieten Preussens.
-, 1883.

NEWLANDS# J. Report on the Sewerage and other works. Liverpool,

1848.
Liverpool Past and Present, in Relation to Sanitary
Operations. Liverpool, 1859.

NICHOLSON COOMBEl R. G. A Treatise upon the Law of Light etc.

London, 1911.

PAPWORTH# W- Notes on the Causes_of Fires, or which is the

Safest of the Various Modes of Warming Buildings.
London, 1853.

pERKINS, A. M. Apparatus for Warming and Ventilating Buildings.

London, 1840.

pERKSI S. London Building Act 1894. (in Land Agents Record).

London, 1900.

piPER, T. Acts Regulating Building, etc., in the_Metropolis..

London, 1856.

599
POWNALL, R. E. Common Weal v. Bricks and Mortar. London, 1878.

RITCHIE, R. A Treatise on Ventilation, Natural and Artificial.

London, 1862.

ROBERTS, H. The Dwellings of the Labouring Classes. London,

1851.
The Improvement of Dwellings. London, 1853.

ROSCOE, E. S. A Digest of the Law of Light. London, 1881,

von RONNE, L. Baupolizei des Preussischen Staats. -, 1872.

RUDALL, A. R. Party Walls and the Rights and Liabilit ies of

Adjoining Owners in relation thereto*at Common Law
and under the London Building Act 1894. London,
1907.

RUMSEY, H. W. On Sanitary Legislation and Administrat ion in

England. London, 1858.

SACHS, E. O. Fires and Public Entertainments. London, 1897.

SCHMIDT, E. W. C. F. How Not to Build a House. Eastbourne, 1884.

SCOTT, J. J. Metropolitan Local Management-Act. London, 1855.

SHAW, E. M. Fire Surveys, or Principles in Estimating Risk in

Buildings. London, 1872.

SIMON, Sir J. English Sanitary Institutions.. London, 1890.

SMITH, T. Metropolis Local Management Act 1855. London,

1855.

SMITH, W. R. The Law concerning Public Health. London, 1884.

STATHAM, H. H. The Changes in the London Building Law. London,

1895.

TAGG, C. W. and GLENISTER, L. O. London Laws and By-laws. London,

1908.

TAYLOR, T. The Local Governmen Act 1858 and the Acts

incorporated therein, "t together the Public
with
Health Act 1858. London, 1858.

TEALE, T. P. Dangers to Health : Pictorial Guide to Domestic

ýanitary Defects. -a d
edition. London, 1879.

THOmAS, E. L. The Public Health (London) Act 1891, with

ýxplanatory
notes. London, 1892.

TURNER, E. The Sanitary Work of an Architect. London, 1881.

UNWIN, R. Town Planning in Practice, an introduction to the

art of designing cities and suburbs. London, 1909.

WARE, M- Handy Book of Sanitary Law. London, 1866.

WOOLRYCH, H. W. Law of Party Walls and Fences, with Building Act.

London. 1845.

600
The Metropolitan Building Act with notes, glossary
of architectural terms and full index. London,
1856. (2nd edit. 1877,3rd. edit. 1882)
Treatise of the Law of Ancient and Modern Window
Lights. London, 1864.
Metropolis Local Management Acts. London, 1880.

YOUNG, C. F. T. Fires, Fire Engines - with Remarks on Fireproof

Construction. London, 1866.

YOUNG, W. A Key to the Metropolitan Building Act. London,

1856.

601
Section IV

This lists a selection of the more relevant books and pamphlets

published after 1916 which relate to the period covered in the Thesis.

ASHWORTH, W. The Genesis of Modern British Town Planning.

London, 1954.

BROCKINGTON, C. F. A Short History of Public Health. London, 1956.

Public Health in the Nineteenth Century.
Edinburgh, 1965.
BRIGGS, A. Victorian Cities. London, 1963.

CHANTERv H. C. London Building Law. London, 1946.

Chapman, S. D. (Ed) History of Working Class Housing. Newton Abbott,

1971.

CLARKE, J. J. The Housing Problem, its History, Growth,

Legislation _
Procedure. London, 1920.
and

COLLMAN, L. J. London Building Acts (as applied to the erection of

a large commercial building iLi a main thoroughfare. )
R. I. B. A. Final Examination Thesis. 1929.

DAVIESV B. P. Building By-laws. London, 1935.

DYOS, H. J. Study of Urban History. London, 1968. (particularly

'Agenda for Urban Historians', for a bibliography
to the subject of urban history)
Victorian Suburb :A Study of the Growth of
Camberwell. Leicester, 1964.

DYOS, H. J. and WOLFF, M. W. Victorian Cities, Images and Realities.

London, 1973.

FINER, S. E. The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick. London,

1952.

FORSTERl C. A. Court Housing in Kingston upon Hull. An example

of the cyclic process in the morphological develop-
ment of nineteenth century bye-law housing.
University of Hull. Occasional papers in Geography
No. 19 Hull, 1972.

FRAZER, W. M. A History of English Public Health 1834-1919

London, 1950.

GAULDIE, E. Cruel Habitations. History of Working Class Housj-nE

1780-1918. London, 1974.

GLEN, A. and R. Law of Public Health and Local Government (numerous

editions)

HAMILIDN, S. E. A Short History of the Fire Protection of Buildings,

particularly in England. National Building Studies.

602
Special Report No. 27. London, 1958.

HAMMOND# J. L. and B. Age of the Chartists. London, 1930.

HAWKES, D. Building Bulk Legislation. Land Use and Built Form

Studies. Working paper no. 4 University of
Cambridge. No date.

Kelly, T. J. (publ) London Building Acts 1894-1926,. London, 1928.

KNOWLES, C. C. and PITT, P. H. The History of Building Regulation in

London 1189-1972. London, 1973.

LAMBERT, R. Sir John Simon and English Social Administration

1816-1904. London, 1963.

LEWIS, R. A. Edwin Chadw ick and the Public Health Movement

1832-1854. - London, 1952. (see also bibliography
in this work for references to public health)

NEWTON, W. D. Low Ceilings. London, 1922.

OLSEN, D. J. The Growth of Victorian London. London, 1976.

SUMMERSON, Sir. J. The London Building World of the Eighteen Sixties.

London, 1973.
The Architecture of Victorian London. University
of Virginia, 1976.

sutcliffe, A. (ed) Multi-storey Living.. London, 1974.

TARNp J. N. Working Class Housing in Nineteenth Centur-y_ Britain.

London, 1971.
Five per cent Philanthropy. Cambridge, 1974.

WALDRAM, P. J. Structural Designin Steel Frame Buildings. London,

1925.

WALKER, M. E. M. Pioneers of Public Health. Edinburgh, 1930.

WEBB, S. and B. English Local Government from the Revolution to the

Municipal Corporation Act: vol-. iv : Statutory
Authorities for Special-Purposes. London, 1922.

WHITE, B. D. History of the Corporation of Liverpool 1835-1914.

Liverpool, 1951.

603