View report page

86
The Committee recommended that the instruction passed by the Council in this matter, on
the 27th October, 1903, be rescinded, and that the procedure suggested in the foregoing report be
adopted. The new order of things came into operation in January, last. The Council's practice in
regard to the matter is now in line with the practice in vogue in the Metropolis generally.
SMOKE NUISANCE.
In a few instances complaints were made of nuisance from emission of black smoke—by the
London County Council, private persons, and the Sanitary Inspectors. Cautionary letters were addressed
to the occupiers of the premises to which the complaints related. No further proceedings
became necessary. It will be remembered that Sections 23 and 24 of the Public Health (London) Act,
1891, apply only to the emission of "black" smoke. Several complaints were made by the occupiers
of private houses of annoyance from smoke from chimneys of adjacent business premises drifting
in through their open windows; but in no case was the smoke "black," and we had, therefore, no
power to deal with the matter which in one sense of the expression, is an undoubted and really serious
nuisance.
SANITARY CONVENIENCES.
There are only 19 public urinals in the borough—an inadequate provision; supplemented,
however, by about 170 external urinals at public-houses. This latter accommodation is not of a
satisfactory sort, as a rule, but it is better than none: it was improved, moreover, as the result
of proceedings taken by the late Vestry in 1888, and subsequently. There are two sets of public
water closets, for the male sex only, situated, respectively, at the rear of the central public library,
Kensington High Street; and at Lancaster Road, adjoining the public library; and three for both
sexes, viz.: at Brompton Road, by the Oratory; at the west end of Westbourne Grove, and at Talbot
Road. Sanitary authorities have power (under section 88 of the Metropolis Management Act,
1855)," to provide and maintain urinals, water closets, and like conveniences, for both sexes, in
situations where they deem such accommodation to be required." Increased powers were conferred
by the Public Health (London) Act, 1891; Section 44 (2) of which vests the subsoil of roadways in
the sanitary authority, who, moreover, have power to compensate persons injured by the erection
of these conveniences near to their houses, etc.
An interesting question was raised last year as to the right of a beer-house keeper to make an
opening through a wall abutting on the street, to give access to a sanitary convenience (urinal) he
was desirous of erecting for the convenience of his customers, and the avoidance of nuisance committed
against the said wall and the flank of his house. The matter is dealt with in
the Public Health (London) Act, Section 45 (2), which reads as follows:—"No public
. . sanitary convenience shall be erected in or accessible from any street without
the consent in writing of the sanitary authority. . ." It is also dealt with in the London
County Council's (General Powers) Act, 1904 (Section 22). Mr. Macmorran in his book on the firstnamed
Act, says that the sub-section "applies only to public conveniences erected by private persons."
The last-named Act deals with the case of any sanitary convenience "now or hereafter erected which
is so placed or constructed as to be a nuisance or offensive to public decency." The Public Health
Committee viewed the premises, and intimated to the proprietor that they were not "prepared to
approve the plan (submitted) so long as an entrance was shown from the public thoroughfare."
Objection had been raised to the proposed erection by inhabitants of the street. The occupier's
position was rather a hard one, if it is correct, as stated, that the justices required him to provide a
convenience as a condition of his license. Some rather nice questions of law seem to be involved in
this matter, and I do not offer any opinion on them. It only remains to be said that the landlord
erected the convenience, but at the present writing, has not opened it for the use of the public.
Domestic Sanitary Conveniences.—The 26 th by-law of the County Council requires the
landlord or owner of any lodging-house to provide and maintain in connection with such house,
water-closet . . . accommodation in the proportion of not less than one water-closet . . .
for every twelve persons. And a similar provision is contained in the Borough Council's bylaws
for houses let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family. In conformity
with these by-laws, at a considerable number of houses, the inhabitants of which exceed
twelve in number, a second water-closet has been provided. In some instances the owner preferred
to reduce the number of persons to twelve or less, rather than incur the expense of erecting a second
closet.