View report page

91
Up to the present time the Local Government Board has not made any
communication to the Port of London Sanitary Authority as to the result of
the Enquiry. A question was put to the President of the Local Government
Board on the subject of the above complaint, and he replied as follows:—
"I have received a complaint on this subject and have obtained a
statement made by the Port Medical Officer of Health with regard to it.
"It appears that the works of the Company are situate on enclosed
land belonging to the Royal Victoria Docks, and are not contiguous to
any other buildings, that the nearest sewer is 200 yards distant from the
buildings, and that the sanitary arrangements for the use of the workpeople
are of a type in general use in the Docks, in which the soil is
received into a concrete-lined pit, which is from time to time emptied, the
contents being buried in the surrounding waste land.
"The place has been inspected by the Medical Officer of Health, who
states that, although objection may be taken to the form of closet used,
there was no such nuisance as could be dealt with under Section 2 of the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891. He points out that certain other
provisions of the Act do not extend to the Port Sanitary Authority.
"He adds that there is no direct water supply to the premises, but
that the arrangements for supplying drinking water to the workpeople,
if properly carried out, appear to be adequate."
In October complaint was made of a nuisance situated in the dock
belonging to the Gas Light and Coke Company, which dock opens out of
Bow Creek.
On investigation it was found that the overflow pipe from two sanitary
conveniences discharged into the dock, and at the time of the visit of the
Inspector he detected crude sewage flowing from one of the pipes. I visited
the locality, but at the time of my visit I saw no crude sewage, and there was
nothing in the nature of a nuisance.
I reported the facts to the Port of London Authority, who have taken over
the duties of the Thames Conservancy in the tidal part of the River, and they
informed me that the dock referred to is above the south boundary stones
mentioned in the Lee Conservancy Act, 1868, and was therefore beyond the
limits of the Port of London Authority's jurisdiction for the prevention of
pollution, and a communication was accordingly sent to the Lee Conservators,
who informed me that the Board had caused an inspection to be made of the
dock referred to, and that they had given directions for a sealed Pollution
Notice to be served on the Company under the Lee Conservancy Acts, 1868
and 1900, requiring them to abate the pollution within a period of three
months.