View report page

13
A notice was served in July on the owner of the Sandwashing
premises in Plough Lane, under Sec. 32 of the Act.
The following was the Inspector's report on the promises:—
"I examined these premises this morning (July 19th), and
found that the field adjoining the house is swamped with
sewage from privy-pits, staples and sand-washing effluent. The
sewer in Plough Lane is 129ft. distant from the nearest point
of the house, so that although there is no drain sufficient for the
effectual drainage of the premises, the case cannot be dealt
with under Sec. 23 of the Public Health Act, 1875, as the
distance is limited in that section to 100 feet. I suggest that
the best way to deal with the case is under Sec. 32 of 'The
Housing of Working Classes Act, 1890.' The cost of properly
draining the premises would be almost as much as the house is
worth. The house is in a very dilapidated state, and certainly
unfit for habitation. The walls are of wood and plaster, faced
with weather-boarding, and the thickness of the walls throughout
is about 4½ inches. The ceilings are falling, and the flooring
is very shaky. The roof is leaky, and there is no proper
guttering. The privy-pits are situated outside the back door,
and discharge into a ditch in the field adjoining the Plough
Larie. All the waste water and washing water also goes into
this ditch. The drainage from the stables and sand-washing
have converted the whole of the ground surrounding the house
into a malarial marsh, and I consider steps should be taken to
stop Mr. Woodley's business as soon as possible."
Certain work was carried out with regard to the cottage,
but nothing was done to remedy the insanitary condition of
the surroundings, and a closing order was applied for on Nov.
3rd. The Bench allowed the case to be adjourned for a
month, the defendant's solicitor agreeing for his client to take
the necessary steps to meet the wishes of the Council. A
specification of the work required to be done was forwarded
to the occupier, and this specification he declined to carry out.
The Bench held that the Act under which the proceedings