View report page

53
Report of the Medical Officer of Health.
Nuisances.
There are few references in any of the reports to nuisance arising from accumulations of stable
manure. This fact was also observed in 1910. There is little doubt that the more rigid enforcement
of the bylaws and the obvious reduction in the number of horse-drawn vehicles have together combined
materially to reduce nuisance from this cause. It must not be overlooked, however, as was pointed
out last year that the removal of small accumulations of manure will probably become a matter of
increasing difficulty, inasmuch as contractors will not find its collection sufficiently remunerative.
The question is deserving of the consideration of local authorities who have power to act under
section 36 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
Nuisance
from stable
manure.
In several of the reports mention is made of proceedings for the removal of offensive refuse during
prohibited hours. In a few instances, too, proceedings were taken for keeping animals so as to be a
nuisance. Dr. Sandilands states that 190 fixed ashpits were abolished under section 23 of the London
County Council (General Powers) Act, 1904. During 1911 the system of making a bi-weekly collection
of house refuse where recommended by the medical officer of health was continued in Paddington.
In other boroughs there is little variation from the methods adopted in 1910, or previously, in the
matter of dust collection. Dr. Harris, in the report relating to Islington, states that it is certain that
the time will come when all household dust shall be removed at least twice a week.
Other
nuisances.
The annual reports of medical officers of health show that considerable effort is made in London
to deal with smoke nuisance, and in several the statement is made that smoke nuisance is of less frequent
occurrence than formerly. The premises dealt with under the smoke provisions of the Public Health
Act include various manufacturing premises, electricity supply works, laundries, bakehouses, fried fish
shops, hotels, restaurants, etc.
Smoke
nuisance.
Dr. Allan states that in Westminster much of the smoke nuisance complained of is, as in previous
years, the result of careless stoking of the furnaces. Dr. Collingridge again refers to nuisance experienced
by occupiers of offices from smoke issuing from neighbouring chimneys at an inconveniently low level.
Dr. Annis refers in his report to a prosecution in Greenwich which was dismissed on the ground that
although the magistrate was satisfied that there was a recrudescence of the nuisance from the same
chimney within 6 months of the service of the statutory notice requiring not only the abatement of
such nuisance, but also to do whatever might be necessary to prevent the recurrence of the nuisance,
yet that this said recrudescence was not in fact a recurrence because the circumstances connected with
the emission of the smoke on the respective dates were entirely different. On an appeal to the High
Court the magistrate's decision was upheld.

(a) Complaints only.