View report page

40
With respect to No. 17, Brownlow Street, the summons was taken out against the
owner by inspector Firth in consequence of non-compliance with a notice under the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891, the premises being dirty, and the drains and
sanitary arrangements generally being in a defective condition.
The proceedings in respect to Nos. 35 to 39 Charlotte Street were taken under
the drainage bye-laws made by the London County Council under section 202 of the
Metropolis Management Act, 1855, and are worthy of note. The premises Nos. 35 to
39 Charlotte Street were being rebuilt, and plans were submitted shewing a system
of drainage in which it was proposed to place the intercepting trap required by bye-law
5 in a well open to the sky, constructed in the rear of the building. From the intercepting
trap the main drain was shewn passing under the building to join the sewer
in Charlotte Street. The position in which it was proposed to place the intercepting trap
would simply render it a useless obstruction in the course of the drain. The plans were
approved by the Borough Council, subject to the intercepting trap being placed in a
suitable position at the front end of the drain, so that it could fulfil its proper
function of intercepting the drain from the sewer. The trap, however, was placed in
the rear of the building, and a means of access was constructed in the well above
referred to, the contention being that it was impracticable to place it elsewhere so as
to comply with the bye-laws, as the front of the building abutted upon the footway of
the street. After a good deal of correspondence, in which three methods by which the
bye-laws could, in the opinion of the Council's officers, be complied with, were
submitted to the owner's representative, two summonses were taken out against the
builder by inspector Jordan. One of the summonses was for not complying with
bye-law 5, and the other was for failing to provide adequate means of access at each
end of the portion of the drain under the building as is required by bye-law 4. On
the cases coming before the magistrate, the point at issue in respect to bye-law 5 was
the question ot the practicability of placing the intercepting trap at the front of the
drain, so as to comply with the bye-law. Expert evidence was called on both sides,
but that of Mr. J. Bush Dixon, the Borough surveyor, prevailed with the magistrate.
The Borough surveyor demonstrated that it was quite practicable to place the trap
either under the front wall of the building with access in the basement, or in a
specially constructed chamber under the footway approached from the basement, or
under the roadway with means of access from the surface of the roadway. With
respect to the non-compliance with bye-law 4, it was urged on behalf of the defendant
that a means of access was an inlet to a drain, and as such could not be placed
within a building without infringing bye-law 9. The magistrate declined to accept
the view that a means of access to a drain is an inlet prohibited by bye-law 9, and
the defendant was convicted on both summonses.
The summons in respect to Nos. 7 and 9 Curtain Road was taken out by inspector
Jordan, under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. There was an absence of water
supply to the water closet, the drains and sanitary arrangements generally were
defective, and there were other conditions which, taken altogether, rendered the
premises in such a state as to be a nuisance.