View report page

191
Sir,
In reply to your letter of the 8th instant, I have pleasure in stating that the
question of amending the bye-law, referred to in the case of Peverett v. Chambers,
in relation to the construction of waterclosets, is under the consideration of a
Committee of the Council, in connection with, other proposed amendments of the
bye-laws under sections 16 and 39 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
(Signed) G. L. GOMME,
Clerk to the Council.
The Town Clerk,
Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury.
On one occasion during the year a temporary difficulty arose from
obstruction by refusal to admit the Inspector to premises in the
course of his duties. On September 1st, Inspector Peverett visited
150, Old Street, in the course of a systematic inspection of the
district. These premises are occupied by a manufacturer of mosaic,
marble, parquet and other floorings, and used as offices and showrooms.
Some three or four persons are employed. The occupier
refused to admit the Inspector as the place was "only used as an
office and was not a workplace," and the Inspector was therefore
"exceeding his duties" in asking for admission. The Inspector failing
to gain entrance reported the matter to me and I wrote to the
occupier, who was irritated at what he felt to be an unreasonable
requirement on our part. After some correspondence I received a
letter from the occupier, dated October 19th, in which he consented
to allow the Inspector to visit the premises. Some minor defects
were found. I am clearly of opinion that premises such as these
should fall within the judgment given in the High Court in the
case of Bennett v. Harding, and in any event a refusal to grant
admittance is obviously a short-sighted and unwise policy. Happily
no other employer during the year has taken up the attitude of the
occupier in question.
VII. Special Enquiries.
Under this heading it is proposed to record enquiries in respect
of Anthrax, a dust nuisance in a factory, and Dr. Sandilands'