View report page

84
become a source of nuisance. This, however, has not been our experience in Hampstead. The provision
of water taps and sinks has led to an improvement in the sanitation of the premises, and has
been much appreciated by the tenants."
Dr. Alexander reports : " In the month of March notices were served under this Act to provide
a proper and sufficient water supply at some tenement houses in Bromley. After a short delay the
work was carried out and there is now a supply tap and sink on each storey, which, needless to say, are
greatly appreciated by the tenants."
Dr. Sykes raises question in his annual report relating to St. Pancras, as to whether the absence
of a water supply on the upper floors is a greater evil than the provision of water supply and sink, which
he suggests would, when used by careless persons, be likely to cause nuisance, and he states that the
St. Pancras Borough Council had not made use of the powers conferred upon them by this section and
resolved that no action be taken in the matter. In each of the boroughs surrounding St. Pancras,
however, viz., Islington, St. Marylebone, Hampstead and Holborn, these powers are being exercised
and it may be hoped that the experience thus gained will provide sufficient reason for the St. Pancras
Borough Council to reconsider their opinion.
In the annual report relating to Woolwich, Dr. Davies gives the particulars of proceedings before
the magistrate in respect of three houses concerning which the borough council had made an order
for the provision of a water supply to an upper floor. He reports as follows:—
Two cases were heard by Mr. Gill on the 11th October, 1909, and one case by Mr. Hutton on the 20th. The
two cases heard by Mr. Gill were very similar. The houses consisted of six rooms on three floors, the washhouse,
where the water supply originally was situated, being two steps below the basement. In both houses the families
living in the house had joint use of the washhouse. One—No. 8—was occupied as follows:—One family occupied the
ground floor front room and first floor front room; another family the basement back, ground floor back, and first
floor back. The basement front was closed as unfit for occupation. In the other—No. 9—one family occupied the
first floor, and another family the basement and ground floor. The upper flight of stairs consisted of 15 steps and
the lower of 14. As a result of the notice, a water tap and sink were fixed in each house in the passage on the
ground (or middle) floor, but no waste pipe was provided; and a control stop-cock was fixed in the basement washhouse
on the branch water pipe supplying the new tap. It was proved in evidence that, as the result of some seven inspections
made by two inspectors and the medical officer of health, at intervals in the three months succeeding the tap
being provided, the water was found turned off at the control cock on all occasions but one, this being done presumably
to prevent the new tap dripping, filling the small sink and overflowing, so causing a nuisance. Mr. Gill,
after taking a week to consider the case, decided in favour of the defendant in the case of No. 8, and in favour of
the Woolwich Borough Council re No. 9. He held that, as regards No. 8, the General Powers Act did not apply, as
each of the occupiers of the house had separate occupation of a room on each floor, the tenant who sub-let to the
other occupiers having sole legal occupation of the washhouse, although he permitted the other occupiers to use it.
With regard to No. 9, the occupier of the two upper rooms had no water supply on the floor on which his rooms were
situated, and he held it reasonable that there should be a supply, and fined the defendants 20s. and 23s. costs. The
third case was also a six-roomed house on threo floors. The basement consisted of a washhouse with tap and sink
(the only water supply in the house) and a room recently vacated on account of its low height and dark condition.
A family of a man and wifo and one child lived on the ground floor, and a man, wife, and two children on the top
floor. The staircase, consisting of 22 steps, in two flights, is in the middle of the house, hence unlighted, and the
lower flight very dark. A notice having been served to provide a proper and sufficient supply for the tenants on the
top floor, the owner fixed an additional tap outside of the house on the same level as the existing tap in the basement,
but approached without the necessity of going to the basement. This was, as stated to the medical officer of health
on inspection, no improvement, the tenant of the top room still using the tap in the basement. She had the alternative
of coming down one flight of stairs, going outside the house by a side door on the ground floor, descending three
more steps and a sloping passage, and so reaching the tap in the yard at the back; but she preferred, she said to
the medical officer of health, going down the dark lower staircase inside the house. The owner, refusing to provide
a water supply on the top floor, was summoned and the case heard by Mr. Hutton. Having heard the evidence, he
adjourned the consideration, on his own suggestion, to view 'the premises. On the further hearing he asked the
tenant of the top floor whether she was satisfied with the water supply and which tap she used. She stated she was
satisfied and used the new outside tap. Mr. Hutton said, personally, he would not be satisfied, and if the tenant
had said she used the tap in the basement he would have convicted the owner, but as it was he did not think it
reasonably necessary to require a water supply on the top floor.
In a few other reports it is stated that prosecutions were successfully instituted for non-compliance
with the orders of the borough councils, and in a case occurring in Southwark in which there was
an appeal to Quarter Sessions against the decision of the magistrate who had decided in favour of the
borough council, the appeal was dismissed. In this case the house in question is thus described by
Dr. Millson : " The premises are technically a tenemented house occupied by two separate families,
the family without a supply of water being on the top floor. There are three storeys, the lowest one
being a half basement. The existing supply of water is from two taps, one in the yard and the other
in a washhouse in the yard."
Provision in tenement houses for cooking and storage of food.
In 1909 the Council obtained Parliamentary sanction to a provision empowering London
sanitary authorities to require sufficient and suitable accommodation for the storage of food for the
use of each family on the storey or one of the storeys of a tenement house in which are situated the
rooms or lodgings in the separate occupation of such family. In 1908 the Council obtained powers
for sanitary authorities to require in each tenement sufficient and suitable accommodation for the
cooking of food. The requirements relating to accommodation for cooking and storage of food do
not apply to any tenement house used or occupied as such before the passing of the Act.
There is no doubt that these powers, with those relating to water supply, if duly exercised, will
eventually improve the conditions under which a large proportion of the London population is living,
As stated above, many sanitary authorities are utilising the powers to require additional water
supply, and improved cleanliness of tenement houses thus provided is resulting. The later powers have