View report page

74
Fried-Fish Shop Business.—In connection with proposed amendments to the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, elsewhere referred to (page 69), the Sanitary Committee of the late
Vestry, expressed the opinion that the business of a fried-fish seller should be added to the list of
those specified in section 19, in order to the regulation of the conduct of the business, and so as to
prevent it from being an annoyance to adjoining occupiers. This business, undoubtedly, gives rise
to nuisance when carried on negligently, without necessary precautions to prevent the escape of
effluvia, and it is a not infrequent subject of complaint: decided cases, morever, class it as an
" offensive business." The several premises are kept under observation.
Marine Stores.—The business of a marine store dealer is not scheduled in the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, as an offensive business," though it gives rise to objectionable smells,
and has been held by the Appeal Court to be ejusdem generis with the businesses scheduled
originally, in the (now repealed) Slaughter-houses (Metropolis) Act, 1874. Acting upon my advice,
the late Vestry made application to the late Metropolitan Board of Works, in 1883, and
subsequently, to schedule the business under that Act, but without success. And in 1896, upon
receipt of complaints of nuisance arising in the conduct of the business, a similar application was
made to the County Council under the provisions of section 19 of the Public Health (London) Act,
1891. This application, likewise, was unsuccessful. The subject was dealt with fully in the annual
report for 1896—pages 119-123. The premises where the business is carried on are kept under
observation.
REFUSE.
House Refuse.—The work of collection of ashes and miscellaneous rubbish from the
23,000 inhabited houses, has been systematised by division of the borough into districts, and
provision has been made for inspection of ash-pits, and oversight of the dusting-gangs, the
arrangements being under the supervision of the Borough Engineer. A call is made at every house
once a week, and further improvement is scarcely possible, until the objectionable practice of
refuse-harbourage shall have given place to the more rational system of daily collection from
movable receptacles. The arrangements for domestic storage at 'flats' are often found unsatisfactory,
the receptacles being placed in unsuitable positions: complaints are common. In some
instances, the Works Committee have made arrangements for clearing the receptacles two or three
times a week, and in certain cases daily. Nuisance from house refuse does not arise from ashes,
the proper contents of the receptacle, but from the addition thereto of matters of organic origin.
Removal of House Refuse.—At a Conference of the Sanitary Authorities held in 1901,
on the subject of streets and street traffic, one of the resolutions adopted was, "that in the opinion
of this conference house refuse should be removed daily where practicable." In connection with
this resolution the Public Health Committee of the County Council reported, that they had had
under consideration the question, whether any alteration might, with advantage, be made in the
by-law framed by the Council in 1893, under section 16 (2) of the Public Health (London) Act,
1891, to the effect that —"The sanitary authority shall cause to be removed not less frequently than
once in every week the house refuse produced on all premises within their district." The Committee
stated the reasons which, in their judgment, made removal at frequent intervals necessary, and
expressed the opinion that the time had arrived when an effort should be made to secure the
collection of house refuse in London more often than once a week: in Edinburgh and some other
places the refuse is collected daily. The Committee added that in certain parts of London,
especially in business thoroughfares, a daily collection was in force, and they hoped that the effect of
the resolution adopted at the conference would be to extend the system of daily removal. Having
regard, however, to the extent of London, and the varying circumstances of the different districts,
they did not think it practicable, then, to make a by-law requiring a universal daily collection, but
thought a bi-weekly collection to be practicable, and that it should be made compulsory. They
therefore proposed that the word 'twice' should be substituted for the word 'once' in the existing
by-law, and that a copy of the proposed amended by-law should be sent to the sanitary authorities
for their observations, pursuant to section 114 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. This was
done.
The proposal of the County Council did not meet with a favourable reception at the hands
of the Metropolitan Borough Councils, and no progress towards realization of the views of their
Public Health Committee has, so far, been made.