View report page

14
The site occupied for the tipping and sorting of the refuse and the brick-making
industry extends over about four acres. The refuse as brought from the barge, is stacked
into large heaps and remains for about three years before it is used. At the end of the
storage period the refuse is sifted through a sieve, 3/8" mesh. This sifting separates the fine
ash; the "hard core" is picked out leaving the breeze. The fine ash and breeze are used
in connection with the brick-making. A sufficient quantity for the effectual burning of the
bricks is mixed with the clay and the remainder is used for fuel either in kilns or clamps.
The " hard core " is used entirely for road making or the making up of the land of the
brickfields which, owing to its marshy nature, shows frequent subsidence. At the time of
inspection refuse was seen newly deposited and at varying periods of storage up to the
maximum of three years. A heap deposited three years previously, or thereabout, was in
course of sifting and sorting into three types, fine ash, breeze and "hard core." No
objectionable smell or other nuisance was observed from either the newly deposited refuse
or the storage heaps.
In reply to questions, the local manager and the foreman of the brickfields stated that
rats were rarely found in the refuse: neither rats nor flies had given rise to nuisance: so far
as they were aware no complaint had ever been received of any nuisance arising from the
deposit or storage of the refuse or the making of bricks on the fields.
In reply to questions relative to the use of earth for covering layers of refuse, the
London Manager of the brick-making company intimated that the cost of treating the
refuse in this way would prohibit the use by the company of London refuse in the industry.
He pointed out that the fields and surrounding lands by reason of their nature would not
permit cf excavation, so that it would be necessary to obtain the earth elsewhere and import
it to the tips. This cost, added to that incurred for sifting and sorting refuse, would
increase the expense so much that the use of coal for brick-making would become more
economical than the use of London refuse.
The brick-making works were subsequently inspected. Two methods were in use; first,
the kiln method for machine-made bricks, dried by hot air and passed through long tunnel
kilns for burning; no nuisance from smell was observed from this work; the Manager
intimated that this method had been in operation in the brick industry about 25 years only.
In the second, the clamp method, hand-made bricks were dried in the open air and fired
in clamps, breeze being used for fuel. It was stated that a fair-sized clamp would take
about three months to burn; considerable smell is given off during burning, and it would
seem that these fumes might become a source of nuisance if carried out near dwellings.
As, however, the nearest houses are, as previously stated, nearly a mile away, there seems
no reason to suppose that the burning of the clamps on these fields gives rise to nuisance.
The Council was invited to co-operate with the Ministry of Health and other
Metropolitan Authorities in an investigation into the composition of house and trade
refuse in the Metropolitan area. In connection with this, efforts were made to
obtain reasonably reliable data as to the composition of such refuse.
Arrangements were made with the Contractor to obtain thoroughly representative
classified samples of the refuse obtained from Winter, Spring, Summer
and Autumn yields. The samples of house refuse were divided into three groups,
namely:—
(a) From houses with nett rateable value of £30 and under.
(b) „ „ „ „ „ „ „ £31 to £80.
(c) ,, ,, ,, over £80.