View report page

2
Dr. HAMER'S REPORT.
In January, 1905 the Education Committee communicated with the Public Health Committee
concerning the use by one of the borough councils, as a shoot for street sweepings, of land adjoining an
Elementary School. Enquiry was made and it was found that stable manure was deposited for the purpose
of mixing with road slop in a position some fifty yards from the school in question. Inasmuch
as this action appeared to involve a breach of the Council's by-laws, made under section 16 (2) of the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891, the Public Health Committee drew the attention of the Borough
Council to the subject. Correspondence ensued, and in September, 1905, the practice was discontinued.
Early in the following year, it was found that a destructor-furnace and a machine for separating houserefuse
had been installed on the site, and that large quantities of "breeze" and "fine ash," were
there awaiting removal by barge. The practice of depositing road slop and manure had been resumed,
and a large square basin had been formed by banks of manure ; road-slop was from time to time poured
into the hollow thus made. There was, moreover, evidence of nuisance caused by smoke and dust
emanating from the chimney of the destructor-furnace.
The Borough Council had made application to the County Council for a loan of £3,025 in respect
of the newly erected apparatus at the site, and the Medical Officer was therefore instructed to report
whether any nuisance caused by working the apparatus or by any operations carried on by the Borough
Council existed at the school. As a result of the Medical Officer's enquiries the Council entered into
communication with the Borough Council on the question of nuisance. The depot was kept under
observation throughout the ensuing summer, during which period correspondence between the Borough
Council and the Council was being carried on, and it was found that the requirement of the by-law was
not strictly complied with; indeed, it was admitted that the barge intended to remove deposits, only
came to the wharf three times a week; this fact of course made it apparent that the deposits of
refuse material at the depot were allowed to remain for periods exceeding 24 hours.
An inspection on 27th July, 1906, showed the presence of myriads of flies in the neighbourhood
of the heaps, and one of the men working at the depot exhibited a shovel full of " gentles," which he had
collected from the deposits, for use as bait when fishing in the canal. At houses in the immediate
neighbourhood, the fly nuisance was very pronounced. Complaint was made about this time by several
persons to the Council's inspector of their inability even to sleep at night by reason of the plague of
flies. Trouble was also experienced at the school, though it appeared that the dust from the destructor
chimney was there a cause of even greater evil than the flies, for, with certain winds, there was liability
to deposit of layers of fine ash on the walls of the class rooms.
The borough council was unwilling to discontinue the uee of the site, and, it was indeed urged by
some of those who advocated the continuance of the manipulations that there was no reasonable cause
for complaint. On November 23rd, 1906, the County Council's Public Health Committee, in view of the
conflicting evidence on this question, decided to view the premises. At this time, the hot weather being
over, the number of flies was far less than it had been some weeks previously, but an inspection of
neighbouring houses satisfied the Committee that very serious nuisance had been experienced. At a
small general shop, food materials exposed for sale were seen to be thickly covered with fly marks, dead
flies were found in the milk on the counter, and the occupier of the shop exhibited in a box many thousands
of flies which had been collected during the day or two preceding the Committee's visit. The
outcome of the inspection was to raise question whether it was practicable on a site such as that
visited, even if every possible care were taken to avoid any infringement of the Council's by-laws, to
conduct operations of the kind carried out without causing considerable annoyance to neighbours.
It was felt, therefore, that further enquiry should be made with regard to this question of fly nuisance,
thus demonstrated to be almost necessarily experienced in association with manipulation on a large
scale of refuse materials of this sort.
During the winter of 1906, and the early part of 1907, the question of granting a loan in respect
of works carried out at the depot was on several occasions before the Council's Committees, and, at
length, on February 26th, it was resolved to grant the loan, on the understanding that this action should
not be held to prejudice any step the Council might deem it necessary to take in the event of nuisance
being caused. The continued use of the premises during the summer of 1907 thus became inevitable
and it was, therefore, seen that at least an opportunity presented itself of studying in a comprehensive
manner the whole question of fly nuisance. The Medical Officer was instructed to choose some dozen
premises—dust yards, etc.—at which accumulations of refuse were known to exist, for purposes of comparison
with this particular depot, and to estimate the amount of fly nuisance existing under differing
circumstances.
To carry out the scheme involved the selection first of a number of centres, and then of some
half-dozen or more places of observation at varying distances from each centre. So far as the centres
themselves were concerned no difficulty presented itself, but in the case of the places of observation it
was of course necessary to obtain the co-operation of the occupiers of the premises in the work of testing
day by day the extent of prevalence of flies. With a view to conducting the operations on an uniform
plan, it was decided to endeavour to secure as places of observation kitchens or living rooms
occupied by poor people. The rule was laid down that each room should be fairly lighted and, if possible,
have a southern aspect, and that it should be on the ground floor where practicable. The house
selected was preferably to be one not exceptionally clean, and a rough guiding principle was adopted
that the room should not have been "done up " within the last six months. On the other hand it was
thought undesirable to select houses which were exceedingly dirty, or where there was any local disturbing
cause likely to attract flies—such as a manure heap, or a large accumulation of house refuse.
It was of course felt to be important that the house chosen for observation should not be close to a