London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Battersea 1898

Report upon the public health and sanitary condition of the Parish of St. Mary, Battersea...

This page requires JavaScript

121
overcrowded, many seriously so, while at the recent inspection
only 8 out of a total of 54 were found to be overcrowded. That
the vans taken as a whole were in much better condition, in only
one case was the van dirty and dilapidated. In this instance
the Committee gave directions for notice to be served.
At this meeting be also reported relative to the unsuitable
water closet accommodation provided for workmen at the rear of
Nos. 28 and 29 Sarsfeld Road by a builder erecting houses in
Boundaries Road in the Parish of Streatham.
The Committee gave directions for notices to be served
requiring him to provide proper accommodation, and these were
subsequently complied with.
The Committee at this meeting upon a report of the Chief
Sanitary Inspector gave directions for notices to be served
upon the occupiers of houses adjoining the Railway Embankment
at the rear of Nos. 21 to 100 Knowsley Road, who were in the
habit of depositing offensive matter upon the Embankment.
Also upon the occupiers of certain houses in Benham Street
and Britannia Place, who deposited refuse upon the playground
in connection with the British Girls' School.
20th December.—At this meeting the Chief Sanitary Inspector
submitted report relative to the sanitary convenience's in connection
with certain stoneworks in Stewarts Road, which were
improperly supplied with water.
The Committee gave the necessary directions and the works
were subsequently carried out to comply with their requirements.
At a subsequent meeting the Committee considered a report
of the Chief Sanitary Inspector to the effect that certain water
closet apparatus had been fixed at No. 4 Dulka Road without
notice having first been given, as required by the Bye-laws of the
London County Council. That the builder had been previously
convicted of a similar offence in 1896. The Committee gave
directions that proceedings should be taken and he was fined by
the magistrate before whom the casewas taken.