View report page

96
dust collection should be carried out by responsible officers of the sanitary authority without the
intervention of a contractor. (c) That improved dust carts should be adopted, so covered as to
minimise annoyance caused to passers-by during collection of house-refuse, especially in crowded
thoroughfares; and (d) That the method of destruction of house-refuse by fire should be universally
adopted in London.
Nuisance in the Removal of House Refuse.—Several urgent complaints were made last year
with regard to nuisance from the contents of the dust-carts being blown about the streets owing
to the lack of suitable coverings. These complaints, only too well-founded, were brought to the
attention of the Public Health Committee, who referred them to the Works Committee, without
comment.
Removal of Offensive Trade and Other Refuse.—At the Conference above adverted to,
the delegates of the Borough Councils adopted a resolution to the effect— "That the collection of
fish offal and other offensive trade refuse should be undertaken by the Sanitary Authorities at
the expense of the producers. "In June, 1904, the County Council had, upon the recommendation
of the Public Health Committee, decided to apply to Parliament, in the Session of 1905, for
powers" enabling sanitary authorities to undertake, if they think fit, the collection and removal
of offensive trade refuse; and empowering them to require payment of a reasonable sum by the
owner or occupier of any premises from which such refuse is removed"; but the matter was not
dealt with in the Council's General Powers Bill.
In the annual report for 1903, the history of this question of removal of refuse matters was
given at length; it had been dealt with in many previous reports, more especially in and since
the year 188T, when the late Metropolitan Board of Works first took it into consideration.
Nuisance from Stable Refuse.—The subject of nuisance from offensive collections, or
delay in removal, of stable refuse, has found a place in these reports for thirty years. Until
within a comparatively recent date, the principal cause of nuisance was the sunken dung-pits,
now 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
the 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 moss litter. The County Council, appreciating
the gravity of the complaints on this score, made a new by-law in 1901, requiring removal of this
description of refuse under the conditions applicable to the removal of offensive matter generally.
But nuisance will not cease so long as peat refuse, on removal from stables, is deposited in a
fixed receptacle, from which it must needs be transferred to the carriage provided for its conveyance
through the streets. Intolerable stink arises in the turning over of the refuse, and the only
remedy for the nuisance, long practised in the borough, is by the immediate deposit of it in the
vehicle in which removal is to be effected. But nuisance in connection with peat refuse will never
be wholly prevented until sanitary authorities shall have obtained power, and be required, to remove
stable refuse 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
owner; 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. The law obviously requires amendment.
FLOODING OF BASEMENTS OF HOUSES.
In June, flooding of basements of houses, due to the insufficiency of the County Council's
Counter's Creek main line sewer to carry off the combined sewage and storm water, was the subject
of many complaints from inhabitants of numerous streets both in North Kensington and South
Kensington. The same thing happened, but to a much less extent, in October.
* About 1,600 stables in the Borough have been provided with these iron cage receptacles; whilst upwards of 700 brick
receptacles above ground, and nearly 600 sunken pits, have been abolished in the mews, which are not far short of 200 in
number.