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

View report page

Wandsworth 1904

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Wandsworth, Metropolitan Borough]

This page requires JavaScript

147
Report of the Medical Officer of Health.
The particulars of these three cases were as follows:—
(1). Absence of proper water supply to the workshop. An
order was made for the abatement of the nuisance and
the owner ordered to pay 20s. costs.
(2). Failing to provide sanitary conveniences in yard.
mons withdrawn as the work was in hand and costs paid.
(3). Failing to provide sanitary accommodation at a timber yard.
In this case the summons was dismissed as the Magistrate
came to the conclusion that it was not a factory,
workshop, or workplace.
The premises were used as a timber yard, and when inspected
four men were employed, one of these using an office which consisted
of a wooden building near the entrance gates. The yard itself was
used for storing timber and this timber was enclosed in some cases in
temporary covered structures.
The Inspector on first visiting the premises discovered a foul privy
full of excreta, and served notice to abate the nuisance. This was
complied with, but another notice was served to provide proper and
sufficient sanitary conveniences for the workpeople.
It was pointed out to the Magistrate that the judgment in Bennett
v. Harding, 2 Q.B. 397 (1900), was with reference to a case of a similar
nature, but the Magistrate held that the words "whether erected before
or after the passing of the Act" clearly showed that either a factory,
workshop or workplace must be an erection, and he also called attention
to the subsequent words of the section, "persons employed in or
in attendance at such building."
He admitted that this was a case in which a sanitary convenience
ought to be fixed, and suggested that the defendant might be compelled
to provide the same under some of the other sections of the Act, but
in his opinion the defendant's premises were not within the meaning
of Section 38.
The Magistrate was asked to state a case, but he refused to do so.
It was unfortunate that this case was decided against the Council,
as it is now impossible to insist on proper sanitary conveniences in
other places of a similar character.