View report page

4
who is, I understand, responsible for testing all new drains in the parish, is of opinion that "it is
impracticable to test all new drains with the water test." Dr. Davies, on the other hand, in his annual
report for 1896, says "I recommended during the year that all new drains should be tested by the
water test before being passed. This test is no more searching for superficial defects than the smoke
test, but whereas the latter is useless to show a defect two or three feet under the ground, the water
test shows it just as surely as if on the surface. And the danger of defective drains is not wholly or
principally the escape of sewer gas, but the infiltration of the soil with sewage."
A further point in connection with the sewers in this district remains to be noted. At the
end of White Hart-lane a storm overflow discharges into the marsh ditches, and in the early part of
1896, owing to an obstruction in the Cage-lane sewer, sewage was found to be escaping into these
ditches "even when there was no great downfall of rain." It has been decided, however, to construct a new
sewer diverting this storm overflow into the outfall sewer. The work of constructing this sewer is now
I am told approaching completion.
While, as has been seen, the flooding associated with heavy rainfall is confined to a few
houses at the north-western corner of the district, it must not by any means be assumed that
dampness of subsoil is limited to that particular locality. The distribution of damp houses follows
to some extent, as would be anticipated, the "lie of the ground." It is of course not surprising
that in this district, situated as it is on the borders of the marsh land, difficulty should be experienced
in keeping the walls of houses free from signs of dampness; this difficulty might be expected to be
more particularly felt in the most low-lying parts of the district. The rule is on the whole observed,
but there are some peculiarities in the distribution of those houses in which "ground dampness "is
particularly evident, which suggest tbat some special cause is occasionally also at work. In some parts
of the district after a number of houses in succession have been found to have damp walls, then a series
of houses, apparently no more advantageously circumstanced, is met with, in which there is comparative
freedom from traces of ground dampness. It may be that the requirement of the Building Act bylaws
as to the provision of a damp course has not been equally complied with in all instances.
From what has been said it will be clear that the area known as the Reidhaven-road district
possesses original disadvantages which seriously militate against its fitness for use as a building
site, and these disadvantages have in the case of some of the houses been conspicuously enhanced by a
failure to comply with some of the rules which should govern the construction of buildings. It
remains to consider the condition of maintenance and the manner of use of the houses at the present
time in relation to public health administration.
I have visited 202 houses in the district, of which 100 were occupied by members of more than
one family, and 102 by members of one family only.
Considering, in the first instance, the 202 houses as a whole, and comparing the results afforded
by them with those ascertained in other parts of London in which I have made detailed and continuous
inspection, viz., Lambeth, Whitechapel and Mile End Old Town, the following facts are apparent—
(а) Percentage of houses in which defects were found to exist. In the Reidhaven-road
district this percentage is higher than in any of the three districts the results in which are
available for comparison.
(b) Number of instances of the following group of defects—defective roofs, yard paving,
waterclosets, traps or rain water pipes. Here the frequency with which defects exist in the
Reidhaven-road district houses is greatly in excess of that observed in the other three districts.
It should be stated, however, that nearly half the defects noted in these houses, as belonging
to the particular group under consideration, are included under the head of foul water-closet
pans, a condition which I found to obtain in 100 out of a total of 202 houses visited.
(c) The number of instances in which there was a broken receptacle or no receptacle for
dust or in which an undue accumulation of dust was found to exist on the premises. Here the
Reidhaven-road district compares favourably with each of the other three districts.
(d) The number of instances in which dirty conditions or dilapidated conditions other
than those already specified were found. Here the Reidhaven-road district is in far worse
plight than any of the other three districts.
(e) Overcrowding. The number of instances of overcrowding per 100 houses visited I
find to be larger than in Whitechapel and much larger than in Mile End Old Town, but
rather less than existed in Lambeth at the time of my inspection of that district.
It may be added that a larger proportion of damp houses was found in the Reidhaven-road
district than in the other districts.
The unfavourable position of the Reidhaven-road houses in respect of the heading (b), referred
to above is largely attributable to the fact that in the majority of them water-closets of the long hopper
or of other objectionable type are allowed to remain in use, even although in many instances they
are in such a condition as to constitute a nuisance.
In a number of instances a water-closet pan of the short hopper type (terminating below in a
constricted cylindrical portion designed for fitting into the trap) was employed, and its junction with
the trap was effected in the crudest possible manner, for not only was the diameter of the trap abruptly
diminished at the level of the lower edge of the constricted cylindrical portion above referred to, but the
arrangement made was such that the level of the water in the trap was actually below this projecting
edge. When this condition of things existed the pan and trap were almost invariably in a foul
condition. The by-laws made by the Council under section 39 (1) of the Public Health Act provide
that a water-closet shall be provided "with a pan, basin or other suitable receptacle of such
mode of construction as to receive and contain a sufficient quantity of water, and to allow all filth
which may from time to time be deposited in such pan, basin or receptacle to fall free of the
sides thereof and directly into the water received and contained in such pan, basin or receptacle."
The pans described above clearly fail to comply with this by-law, yet in some instances I found
that such pans had been newly provided since the date when the by-laws came into force.