View report page

45
OTHER MATTERS.
[1922
Number.
Matters notified to H.M. Inspector of Factories:
Failure to affix Abstract of the Factory and Workshop Act (s. 133, 1901) 71
Action taken in matters referred by H.M. Notified by H.M. Inspector 13
Inspector as remediable under the
Public Health Acts, but not under the Reports (of action taken) sent to
Factory and Workshop Act (s. 5, 1901). H.M. Inspector 13
Other (New Factories reported under Home Office Memorandum, 1912) nil
Underground Bakehouses (s. 101) in use at the end of the year 85
SANITARY CONVENIENCES IN FACTORIES, WORKSHOPS AND
WORKPLACES.
The London County Council By-laws, under Section 39 (1) of the Public Health (London)
Act, 1891, with respect to water-closets, states that a person who constructs a water-closet
shall so construct it that one of its sides at least shall be an external wall, which must abut
on to an open space of not less than 100 super feet, etc.
In December a letter was received from the London County Council complaining of the
reduction of the open space in connection with the water-closet at a factory in this Borough,
and stating that the Council had decided to take no action under the London Building Act,
1894, in respect of the erection of a brick enclosure referred to, but referring to the Borough
Council the question arising out of the infringement of the by-laws. The by-laws do not
provide for such a case as the subsequent reduction of the area afterwards. The Public
Health nuisances sections would not appear to cover the matter, and, if proceedings were
taken under Section 38 of the Public Health (London) Act, which provides a case of insufficient
or unsuitable accommodation, it is doubtful if the magistrate would convict, especially if
the deficiency in area was small.
I communicated with the London County Council suggesting that the by.law should be
amended to cover such a case, and they replied that the Council were advised that no action
can be taken under the by-laws to obtain a reinstatement of the required space, and that
the matter had been noted in connection with any necessary amendment of the by-laws in
question.
During the year the Borough Engineer submitted to me 77 (seventy-seven) plans of
proposed drainage work at factories, workshops and workplaces in the Borough. These
plans were examined as regards the sufficiency and suitability of the sanitary conveniences;
where the proposed work appeared to be unsatisfactory, the plans were returned for
amendment, or approved subject to certain conditions being complied with. In connection
with this work, the Workshops Inspector, Mr. Watson, visited most of the premises, and
in some cases the architect or builder personally called to discuss points in question.
On the 28th June a summons was heard at Clerkenwell Police Court for non.compliance
with the statutory notice. The summons was adjourned till the 5th July, when the
magistrate made an order for the work to be carried out in ten days, and the defendant to
pay three guineas costs. The order not being carried out, application was made for a summons
for disobedience, which came on for hearing on the 18th October, when it was adjourned
till the 15th November, and on that date adjourned till the 22nd November, when the
magistrate still further adjourned it till the 29th November, on which date, having been
informed that the work had only just been completed, said that as the work was done he
would "dismiss the case under the Probation of Offenders Act," and ordered the defendant
to pay two guineas costs. The above matter, including the application for the summonses,
necessitated the attendance of the Workshops Inspector at the Court on seven occasions,