View report page

113
Sunken pits were necessarily allowed to remain where, owing to the construction of stable
premises—the entire frontage being occupied by doors—it was impracticable to provide any other
form of receptacle. In each such case, and the cases were not numerous, 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. Until 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 stables, 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 immediate deposit in the vehicle in which removal is to
be effected. But nuisance in connection with the removal will never be wholly prevented until
sanitary authorities shall have obtained power, and be required, to remove this offensive matter at
the cost of the owner. In the (now repealed) Sanitary Act of 1866, power to do this, at their
own cost, was given to the sanitary authority, but only with the consent of the owners 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 (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 connection with my recommendations; but without effect until 1892, when, under the
inflence of a cholera scare, they reported that—
' In considering general matters bearing upon the sanitary administration of the parish,
we have 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 are of opinion that the time has
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 the Committee reported—
' 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.t
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
* 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 reports, it had been considered in 1886 upon a report of the
Law and Parliamentaiy Committee on 'Sanitary, Nuisances Removal and other Cognate Acts.' The Committee, whilst
recognising ' 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-si-le wharves, and where, doubtless, a market
could have been found for its use on the stiff clay lands in the vicinity. The depot has now been sold.