View report page

175
and set fire to there, either intentionally or accidentally by
stray sparks from passing engines over the adjoining lines of
the L. & S. W. Rly. There can be no doubt but that at
times, in certain states of the atmosphere, a nuisance from
effluvia from the burning refuse takes place, affecting the
immediate neighbourhood, and extending a considerable distance
along the Embankment. This nuisance only occurs
occasionally, and the owners of the premises claim that they
have taken, and are taking, the best practicable means for
counteracting the effluvia arising in connection with their
business of destroying house refuse. The premises are kept
under constant supervision. The Local Government Board
was written to in the following terms:—"The nuisance complained
of by Mr. Nightingale is an intermittent one, and the
Town Clerk has not yet been able to get sufficient evidence
to justify the applying to the Police Magistrate under the
Public Health (London) Act, and up to this time there has
not been a complaint signed by the number of ratepayers
referred to in Section 21 of the Public Health (London) Act,
1891, which would justify the Town Clerk in complaining to
the Court, whether the complaint was justified in the views
of the Medical Officer of Health and his Inspector or not."
Shot Tower Wharf Destructor.
Complaints were again received in 1908, from Messrs.
John Dewar & Sons, Limited, with respect to the recurrence
of the nuisance in connection with the working of the
destructor situated at Shot Tower Wharf, belonging to the
City of Westminster, and, in relation thereto, the
Medical Officer had an interview at the Wharf with the City
of Westminster's Medical Officer and Deputy Engineer.
The nuisance complained of appeared to be due, at least in
part, to an alteration of the working of the destructor, by
which the red hot clinker was placed directly into the contractor's
barges—the contractor being bound by his contract
(which began on September 1st, 1908) to damp down the red