View report page

118
"No supplies are disconnected without the order of the Committee being first obtained, and
in each case the whole of the surrounding circumstances are brought before them and fully considered.
It has been the practice to refrain from giving such orders where the premises are
known to be occupied by more than one family, and in genuine cases of poverty. Moreover, as
you are doubtless aware, the Board are precluded by the Water Companies (Regulation of Powers)
Act, 1887, from cutting off water where the owner, and not the occupier, is liable, by law or by
agreement, for the payment of the water rate in respect of any dwelling house, or part of a
dwelling house occupied as a separate tenement.
"With regard to the suggestion that the Board are continuing the practice of the late
Companies, I am to state that the number of cases disconnected by the Board is very considerably
less than before the transfer from the Companies; in fact, it amounts to less than one-third.
During the half-year to Michaelmas, 1906, out of a total of nearly 1,100,000 supplies, only 213
were actually withdrawn, and of these 213 cases, 132 were merely turned off at the stop-cock,
leaving only 81 cases in which physical disconnection was made.
"When regard is had to the fact that the Board's area of supply comprises some 252
parishes, it will be seen that the cutting-off of supplies has been reduced to a very low point,
and I may add that whenever a supply is withdrawn, notice is immediately sent to the Clerk and
the Medical Officer of Health of the Sanitary Authority.
"I might mention that during the period above referred to, the number of supplies actually
disconnected in the Borough of Kensington was ten."
The foregoing explanation must be regarded as satisfactory, as far as it goes. The only
comment it suggests to my mind is, whether, in the circumstances, it can really be worth the while
of the Water Board to exercise their cutting-off powers for non-payment of the rate ? and whether
it would not be better to remove all ground for adverse criticism by discontinuing the practice, and
taking legal proceedings against the surprisingly small number of " rate defaulters " ?
Provisions as to Water.—Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Section 48 (2).—I brought this
question to the attention of the Public Health Committee, the requirements of the Act not being
enforced within the Borough. The sub-section reads as follows:—
"A house which after the commencement of the Act is newly erected, or is pulled down to or
below the ground floor, and rebuilt, shall not be occupied as a dwelling-house until the sanitary
authority have certified that it has a proper and sufficient supply of water, either from a water company or
by some other means."
"My attention had been drawn to the subject in connexion with an application for my certificate,
in a case where exemption from Inhabited House Duty was claimed, in respect of dwellings comprised in
certain "mansions," in South Kensington. On inspecting the premises, I found that the water cisterns were
so placed as to be inaccessible for cleansing, in contravention of the Council's 12th by-law, made under the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891, Section 50, ' with respect to the cleansing of Cisterns,' which provides that—
'The owner of any premises who shall provide thereon a tank, cistern, or other receptacle to be used for storing
of water used, or likely to be used, by man for drinking or domestic purposes, or for manufacturing drink for
the use of man, shall cause the same to be so constructed and placed that it may conveniently be cleansed.'
The dwellings in question had been in occupation for some ten months; no certificate having been given by
the sanitary authority that they had 'a proper supply of water'; and the cisterns not having been
cleansed during that period, as prescribed by the Council's 14th by-law, which requires that the cistern
be 'emptied and cleansed once at least in every six months, and at such other times as may be necessary
to keep the same in a cleanly state and free from pollution.'"
The matter had been dealt with by the Sanitary Committee of the late Vestry, in 1892, on
whose recommendation it was resolved—
"That it be an instruction to the Surveyor to make inspections, and grant certificates, in all cases
where application is made to him under the provision of the statute"—
the result being that, no certificates being applied for, none were granted. I advised the Public
Health Committee that—
"The requirements of the Act should be complied with, and every new house inspected with respect
to the water supply, so as to ensure that it shall not be occupied until the Council shall have given the
certificate required by the Act."
The Committee concurred with my views, and directed that the carrying out of the provisions
of the Act be delegated to the Public Health Department; and the Council having adopted their
report, any new house is now inspected, and not allowed to be occupied until the "Sanitary
Authority have certified, under the hand of the Medical Officer of Health, that it has a proper and
sufficient supply of water."