View report page

90
Sunken pits were necessarily allowed to remain in certain cases in which, owing to the
construction of the stable premises—the entire frontage being occupied by doors—it was impracticable
to provide any other form of receptacle. In each such case the pit was reconstructed
to a reduced depth (the sides and floor being cemented) and drained to the sewer.
Nuisance from Stable Refuse and the Remedy.—The subject of nuisance from offensive
collections, or delay in removal, of stable refuse, has found a place in these reports for nearly
30 years. I ntil within a comparatively recent date the principal cause of nuisance was the
sunken dung-pits, now, as we have seen, generally displaced by the iron cage receptacles recommended
by me in 1875. More than a quarter of a century ago the late Vestry made regulations
with a view to secure the removal of stable refuse three times in each week, on alternate days;
and on the whole the work of clearance has been effected of late years in a fairly satisfactory
manner. Nuisance now arises most frequently in connection with the removal of peat refuse,
The County Council appreciating the gravity of the complaints on this score, have recently made
a new by-law requiring removal of this description of refuse under the conditions which apply
to the removal of offensive matter generally. Improvement is likely to ensue under the by-law,
but nuisance will not cease so long as peat refuse, on removal from the stable, continues to be
placed in a fixed receptacle from which it must needs be transferred to the carriage provided
for its conveyance through streets. Intolerable stink arises in the turning over of the refuse,
and the only remedy, long practised in the borough, is its immediate deposit in the vehicle in
which removal is to be effected, thus avoiding disturbance of it prior to removal with consequent
emission of the characteristically foul stench. But nuisance in connection with the removal will
never be entirely prevented until sanitary authorities shall have obtained power, and be required,
to remove this (and other) offensive matter at the cost of the producer. In the (now repealed)
Sanitary Act of 1860, power to do this, at their own cost, was given to the sanitary authority, but
only with the consent of the owner of the refuse; and in many of these reports the late Vestry
were advised to undertake the duty. As the law now stands, the occupier of any premises may
"require" the sanitary authority to remove any trade refuse on payment (see Public Health
Act, 1891, section 33); but the sanitary authority need only, " if they think fit," collect and remove
"manure and other refuse matter from any stables the occupiers of which signify
their consent in writing to such removal"—a consent which may be withdrawn or revoked
after one month's previous notice (section 36). The owner of such refuse cannot "require" the
sanitary authority to remove it,* nor is he under any obligation to pay for the removal; although
doubtless, many occupiers of stables would willingly do so, and be quit of a troublesome
responsibility, and of liability to fine for non-compliance with the regulations. This subject
engaged the attention of the Sanitary Committee of the late Vestry on more than one occasion,
in connexion with my recommendations; but without effect until 1892, when, under the influence
of a cholera scare, they reported (7th September) that—
"In considering general matters bearing upon the sanitary administration of the
parish, they had been led to discuss the question as to the difficulty experienced in securing
the periodical removal of manure and filth from stables and mews, and were of opinion that
the time had arrived when the Vestry should, on sanitary grounds, undertake such removal."
The Committee recommended—
"That it be referred to the "Wharves and Plant Committee to consider and report as to
the practicability of a scheme being adopted for this work to be undertaken by the Vestry."
The reference was made, and on the 9th November, the said committee reported their opinion—
"That the expense of any scheme to give effect to the collection and removal of
the manure from the mews would be so great as to render the proposal at the present time
impracticable."
The report was adopted by the Vestry.†
The Sanitary Committee had not contemplated removal at the public expense, but relied
on the willingness of the occupiers of stables to pay (as in the case of trade refuse) "a reasonable
sum for such removal," and they were not uninfluenced by the opinion expressed in these reports,
that the refuse would be of value sufficient to defray the cost of removal. Since the date of the
afore-mentioned report. the question was not again seriously entertained until last year, when
* It is open to question, however, whether the refuse of an omnibus yard or cab yard may not be deemed to be "trade
refuse" which the occupier of the premises may "require" the sanitary authority to remove on payment : certainly fish offal
and the offal from slaughterhouses comes within the definition "trade refuse," and it is surprising that fishmongers and
butchers should not have " required " the sanitary authority to remove it.
† The subject was not new to the Vestry; for apart from my ordinary reports, it had been considered in 1886 upon a
report of the Law and Parliamentary Committee on "Sanitary, Nuisances Removal and other Cognate Acts." The Committee,
whilst recognizing "the necessity for making proper arrangements for the removal of manure and other refuse matter," stated
that "the Vestry had not depot accommodation or staff or plant adequate to cope with so large a work," as I had recommended.
For this reason they considered that the Vestry was not then "in a position to contract generally for the removal of manure
and other refuse matter." In 1892 the circumstances were different, the Vestry not only having staff and plant, but also a
depot, at Purfleet. to which refuse could have been conveyed from the river and canal-side wharves, and where, doubtless, a
market could have been found for its use on the stiff clay lands in the vicinity.