View report page

5
house was ordered by the Magistrate to be closed; in the other case
a tine of £1 2a. 6d. was inflicted. As will be seen from the table on
page 18, a large amount of Sanitary Work has been carried out,
including the periodical inspection of the Bake Houses, Slaughter
Houses and Private Schools.
Infectious Disease.—During last year the negotiations for a
joint Infectious Hospital with Enfield were abandoned, the terms
submitted to this Board for acceptance having been withdrawn by
the Enfield Local Board. Every effort has since been made to secure
a suitable site, and at the present time there is good reason to
believe that in the near future, the District will be well provided for
in this respect. During the year £172 was spent in isolating cases
of infectious disease, fumigating rooms, clothing, etc. •
Health.—Considering that South Hornsey is the most densely
populated Urban Sanitary District in Middlesex (being 74 to the
acre, the next being Tottenham with 23.7 to the acre) it can claim
to be a very healthy district; the death rate according to the last
comparative statement, being seventh from the lowest of the 25
Urban Sanitary Districts in Middlesex, most of which are rural or
semi-rural in character.
Temperature.—The exceptional heat and drought of 1893
caused the items for watering, and paving to be excessive, the latter,
owing to the irregular shrinkage of the ground. This also affected
the house walls—the 27 notices having reference to dangerous
structures, being chiefly from this cause.
Proposed Annexation.—On the 16th May, 1893, the London
County Council made a representation to the Local Government
Board, that it would be advantageous that a portion of the Parish
of Hornsey, including the whole District of South Hornsey, should be
annexed to the County of London. Your Board, however, on considering
the matter, came to the conclusion that the advantages
of the proposed annexation would not benefit South Hornsey, and
unanimously passed a resolution protesting against the proposal,
appointing a Committee to resist the same. This view was endorsed
by the Ratepayers themselves, first through a deputation which
attended one of the meetings of the Board, and secondly by a petition,
which, in a very limited space of time, was signed by 1585 Ratepayers.
In the event, the London County Council withdrew their
petition, but not until every preparation had been made to oppose their
interference with this District.