London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Battersea 1928

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Battersea Borough]

This page requires JavaScript

70
During the year 1928, 703 drains were tested by smoke of which
101 were found defective. The water test was applied on 1,393
occasions, this being mainly applied to drains in course of construction
or reconstruction. Soil pipes and ventilating pipes were
reconstructed or repaired in 110 instances.
Water closets were provided in 118 cases and existing closets
repaired in 562 cases.
The total number of drains relaid during the year was 103.
Those cleansed and repaired numbered 316.
A useful provision is that contained in Section 20 of the London
County Council (General Powers) Act, 1928, which came into force
on 1st January, 1929, by which the owner of premises in, under
or attached to which there is a disused drain, is required under
penalty to give notice of the existence of such drain to the Borough
Council.
Sanitary Conveniences attached to Licensed Premises.
During 1928 the number of public-house urinals under inspection
was 118. In 80 instances the accommodation is accessible to
the general public as well as the users of the houses, and in 38 cases
the accommodation is accessible to the customers only. As a result
of the annual inspection of these conveniences, 28 notices were
served to remedy defects discovered.
Smoke Nuisances.
During the year 15 observations were made and 21 complaints
received. Seven preliminary notices were served by the Council
under the provisions of the Public Health (Smoke Abatement)
Act, 1926, to abate smoke nuisances, and no recurrence of the
nuisances having been reported no further action was necessary.
Effluvium, &c., Nuisances.
Complaint was received of effluvium nuisance from a large
factory premises in Church Road, and on investigation it was found
that the firm were engaged in experiments with a view to finding the
most suitable means of preventing effluvium nuisance from their
works, and that the complaint in question arose out of the accidental
breakdown of the experimental plant. It was anticipated by the
firm in question that when the new plant was installed the recurrence
of the nuisance would be avoided. No further complaints with
regard to these premises had been received at the close of the year.