View report page

55
Newington.—In 5 instances smoke nuisance was abated.
St. Olave.—2 cases of smoke nuisance were dealt with.
Bermondsey.—11 statutory notices were served and 7 summonses were taken out, and fines and
costs inflicted amounting to £23 14s.
Rotherhithe.— In 18 instances smoke nuisance was abated.
Lambeth.—The number of cases of smoke nuisances investigated was 18.
Battersea.—12 smoke nuisances were dealt with.
Wandsworth (Clapham).—The number of cases which came under notice was 13, and in 11
cases intimation notices were served and complied with.
Camberwell.—In 40 instances smoke nuisances were dealt with.
Greenwich (Deptford).—Notices for the abatement of smoke nuisances were served in 14
instances.
Lee (Charlton).—Only in a few cases has interference been required.
Plumstead.—In the autumn the medical officer of health wrote to the director-general, calling his
attention to the frequency with which black smoke proceeded from the arsenal chimneys. Less smoke
was observed during the last three months of the year.
Nuisance from deposit of offensive matter.
Nuisance arising from deposit of offensive matter on vacant land is from time to time cause of
complaint in London. The duty of the owner of such land has been recently decided by the Court of
Appeal, the vestry of the parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, Westminster, having applied for an
injunction against the owners of a piece of vacant land in that district for allowing the land to be and
remain in such a state as to be a nuisance and injurious to health.
This application was refused, the learned judge pointing out that it would not be reasonable to
impose upon the owner of the land the serious duty of preventing nuisances from arising on the land,
and that the vestry could remove the obnoxious matter under the powers of the 35th section of the
Public Health (London) Act, and recover the expenses from the owner. The vestry appealed against
this decision, the case being heard in the Court of Appeal before Lords Justice Lindley, Smith and
Rigby who reversed the decision.
Nuisance from stable manure.
Nuisances from stable manure is referred to in several of the reports of medical officers of
health.
Paddington.—The medical officer of health thus writes—
" There has been some difficulty in securing the regular clearance of manure from stables,
chiefly in the summer months, when its removal is most required. The ultimate disposal of manure is
becoming every year a more difficult problem. Farmers will not trouble themselves about it except at
such times as may be convenient to themselves, and the extension of the suburbs renders it necessary
to remove the refuse further afield. The sanitary authorities are awaking to the nuisance arising from
heaps of refuse in their districts, and have obtained injunctions in certain cases, and in others have
made by-laws imposing restrictions on contractors. Under section 36 of the Public Health (London)
Act, 1891, the vestry are empowered to agree with horse owners to undertake the removal of manure.
Such procedure would ensure regular collection from the mews and stables, but what the vestry would
do with the collected manure it is difficult to say. The section mentioned is, however, incomplete, as
it does not empower the vestry to levy any special charge or rate for such removal."
Kensington.—The medical officer of health states that since the Council's by-law regulating the
construction of receptacles for dung has come into operation " complaints are now few in number, and
as the cause of complaint, the sunken dung pit is now almost a thing of the past, we may reasonably
hope to be free from annoyance on this score in future." He shows in tabular form the alterations
which have been effected, among which are the erection of 1,563 iron cages and the abolition of 725
brick receptacles. Referring to the difficulty in securing the removal of stable refuse and to the need
of the consent of the owner of manure when its removal is undertaken by the sanitary authority in
accordance with the provisions of section 36, he writes—
" The necessary consent would be forthcoming in most cases if it became known that the
requirements of the law would be enforced in case of neglect by the owner to comply with the
regulations. In many cases money is paid by the owners for the removal of the refuse, and there is no
reason why they should not pay the sanitary authority a suitable fee for the service. Many persons
would be glad to do so, and thus relieve themselves of a burdensome obligation. At the same time it
is not improbable that the large amount of refuse produced in our numerous mews would have a value
sufficient to defray the cost of an organized system of collection and removal to the country."
Referring to nuisance caused by the use of peat litter, and mainly arising in the course of
its removal, he points out that the vestry under section 36 (2) of the Public Health (London) Act
now requires the removal of manure from stables three times every week, i.e., on alternate week days,
and that this requirement is generally complied with by the occupiers of the premises where this
nuisance had arisen.
St. George, Hanover-square.—The medical officer of health reports that the mews of the parish
are generally satisfactory, except during the summer months, when there is great difficulty in getting
rid of the dung, because the farmers are too busy to fetch it away.
Wandsworth ( Wandsworth parish).—" Accumulations of manure are still a source of trouble to
the sanitary department. It seems to be increasingly difficult for owners of horses to get rid of the
manure, especially at certain seasons."
Removal of offensive refuse.
The removal of offensive refuse, either in prohibited hours or in a vehicle or vessel not properly