The Cornwall Record Office holds a report which is dated 26th January 1893 and is signed by William Nettle, Medical Officer of Health. It gives an interesting insight into the housing conditions of the working classes at the end of the 19th century and briefly mentions housing in the 24 parishes in the District.

In the introduction he notes that only one village in the District, Menheniot, had a public water supply with standpipes, most water being drawn from wells, private pumps or 'shoots'.  

The disposal of sewerage in virtually every village was by depositing it on the land, this is usually the garden. Fortunately most dwellings had a large enough garden to enable the disposal of slop-water, etc. without ill effect.

In all villages the old fashioned privy and cesspit is the form of water closet in general use, although many were built of wood and described as being in a dilapidated state. They appear to have had no roofs as they were described as being without cover, other than possibly some furze or material of that kind, so most were open to rain and flies which greatly increased the nuisance. The contents were allowed to seep into the neighbouring soil and the inspector deplored that fact that they did not put ashes or other suitable material in them to absorb the noxious smells and reduce the risk of ill-health. A critical comment, notes that the Authority had not adopted any Bye-Laws on the removal of house refuse and the cleansing of privies, even though this was urgently required.

The quality of the cottages varied considerably, some houses being very dilapidated to the point that they were structurally defective and unfit for human habitation. The usual flooring was slate slabs laid on bare soil which was invariably damp and  the slabs were often cracked and there were holes in the floor. Bedrooms usually had no ceiling and the ground floor could be seen through gaps and holes in the flooring.  The windows were often a bad fit and the rooms were very draughty, so much so that a candle would not keep alight.  The walls could be very damp, especially if there was no form of guttering to carry rain water away, also the absence of a damp proof course did not help. Again the Inspector lamented that there were no Building Bye-Laws in place in the District.

ST IVE PARISH

No actual names are given to any of the cottages, but then not many had names, everyone knew who lived where!

St Ive Village

This is described as a small village of about ten cottages, three of which were in a very bad state of repair, with the walls cracked and damp and the windows and doors in a state of disrepair.  

St Ive Keason

About ten houses, mostly of which were dry and in fair repair, four had no closet and the water supply was by a private windlass well. Of the three cottages specifically mentioned, one had a bad roof with the rain coming in and not surprisingly the walls were wet as a consequence, the inspector considered this a very unhealthy house. The second cottage was in fair repair and the walls were dry but there was a pig sty attached to the house and close to the well, they had no closet. The third cottage was in a very bad state with the walls very wet. 

St Ive Cross

Here there were about twenty five houses of which three or four were in a disgraceful state. The water supply was by a windlass well. The very poor cottages were described. One was in bad repair with all the plastering falling down, the windows were dilapidated and falling out and the house was cold and draughty. The second cottage was also in a very bad state with windows and doors in disrepair with the wind blowing in freely. The staircase was rickety, the roof leaked and the walls were wet and the place was not fit for habitation. The third cottage was described as quite unfit for habitation having all the defects of the previous with holes in the bedroom ceiling which was falling down and the rain coming in.

Pensilva

This was described as a large mining village with a decreasing population. It had houses of all standards. Most of the water supply was by private pumps of public shoots. Four cottages were described in detail.

Cottage 1. Walls very wet with the paper black and peeling off. House very damp, draughty and unhealthy and no water closet.

Cottage 2. Here the ceiling was falling down in the bedroom owing to the wet coming through the roof. The walls were bulging and it was described as a very wet unhealthy house.

Cottage 3. The walls were so saturated with water that it was said the bed ties rotted in the beds.

Cottage 4. The doors and windows were dilapidated, the walls were very wet with the house damp, cold and draughty. No water closet.

It was commented that houses of the latter type were all too common in the lower parts of Pensilva. The tenants were too poor to pay much rent, therefore the owners were not inclined to do any repairs. The conditions under which many of the labourers had to be house was “very deplorable.”

Although comment was made about the decreasing population due to the mining slump, conditions did not seem as bad as in the fishing towns. For example in Polperro the inspector examined 114 houses of which 70 had no closet at all.  Overcrowding was a considerable problem with up to 7 people sleeping in a room 15 x 9 x 7 feet. Sewerage was kept in the house during the day and disposed off in the river or harbour at night, however if you lived alongside the water all rubbish of all descriptions was simply thrown out of the window! The comments for Looe, another fishing port, were much the same.

St .IVE PAGE