View report page

57
Vestry of St. Marylebone under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, for not securing the due removal
at proper periods of house refuse from premises in the parish. The consideration of this report was
postponed, at the suggestion of our chairman, in consequence of the receipt of a letter from the vestry
clerk, stating that the vestry would, on the 20th instant, resume debate on the motion for the adoption
of the following recommendation from a committee, viz. :—" That arrangements be made for a house-to-
house call for the removal of house refuse from all premises in the parish at least once a week, and that
the Council's Public Health Committee be informed accordingly."
We are now glad to report that a further letter has been received from the vestry, stating that they
have adopted the above recommendation, and in the circumstances we have requested our chairman to
to ask leave to withdraw our report which is still before the Council. We have informed the vestry that
we shall be glad to hear when the new arrangements have been brought into force; and we hope at a
later date to be able to report that these arrangements have effected the improvement which is needed.
Inquiry had been made into the subject of dust collection in St. Luke in 1896, and the Vestry
of St. Luke was communicated with. The results of a further inquiry was submitted to the Public
Health Committee in July. The Council's inspector came to the conclusion that each house was
called at every week by the collector, but in 313 of 1,331 houses he visited, or 23.5 per cent., he found
accumulations of two weeks and upwards. This was a marked improvement upon the results obtained
by inquiry in 1896.
In December I presented to the Public Health Committee the results of similar inquiry in
Hackney. It was found there were accumulations of refuse of two or more weeks in 2,834 houses of
10,119 houses at which inquiry was made, or 28.1 per cent. In this district the dust collectors call
at each house every week, and failure to remove the refuse is due to the obstruction of the householders.
Progress is being made in London in connection with the more frequent removal of house
refuse. Sanitary authorities are increasingly re-arranging their administration so as to secure that
this removal shall be effected not less frequently than once a week in compliance with the requirement
of the Council's by-law. Fixed receptacles are gradually giving way to moveable receptacles. A
weekly call of the dust collector at each house is being more generally made, and by degrees the
London householder is falling into line with this requirement, and is giving facilities for the removal
of his refuse. Much has, however, yet to be done to secure the co-operation of the public, and there
is need for the institution of proceedings for penalty for obstruction in well selected cases, so as to
obtain compliance with a system which alone can ensure the proper scavenging of London.
The steps taken in a number of the districts is shown in the annual reports of medical officers
of health thus—
Kensington.—" The work of collection of ashes and miscellaneous rubbish from over 23,000
inhabited houses has been systematized by division of the parish into districts, and provision has been
made for inspection of dustbins and oversight of the dusting gangs, the arrangements being under the
supervision of the surveyor. A call is or should be made at every house once a week—twice a week
in Notting-dale district."
Fulham.—" The weekly service of the removal of house refuse has been fairly satisfactory,
though some method of making up for the loss of time caused by holidays, after which complaints
respecting the delay in removal are always very numerous, is still wanting."
The medical officer of health had recommended that, at any rate during the summer months,
dust should be collected from " flats" at least twice a week, owing to the receptacles being usually
placed near windows. This recommendation has not been adopted.
Marylebone.—" The weekly collection of dust has worked far smoother than under the old '
contract. Complaints of non-removal made by the householders against the contractor may be said
generally to have been replaced by complaints by the contractor against the householder of refusal to
have the dust removed. With the exception of a few cases of neglect, the refuse has been removed
regularly and the contracts efficiently performed."
St. Pancras.—The average number of refusals per week under a system of " permissive " weekly
collections was 32 percent. in June and 5 per cent. in November. The medical officer of health
states that sooner or later it will become a question for certain parts of St. Pancras to have a daily
collection of house refuse. He calls attention to the provisions of the Council's by-law relating to
daily collections.
Islington.—The medical officer of health states that the weekly removal of refuse has been one
of the greatest sanitary reforms ever effected in Islington. The number of applications of householders
for removal of their refuse has decreased from 10,138 in 1891 to 312 in 1897.
Hackney.—The number of requests received for the removal of house refuse has decreased to an
almost insignificant figure. " This satisfactory result has followed from the introduction of the system
of calling weekly at each house in the district." The medical officer of health gives the following
account of the system adopted in this district—
For the purposes of dust removal, the whole district is sub-divided into sub-districts, to each of which
one of the vestry's dustmen is appointed with two vans, horses and carman supplied by the contractors.
It is the dustman's duty to call at every occupied house in his sub-district, and, if possible, remove the
dust at least once a week. In order to learn where the dustmen are refused admission, or where no
replies to their calls are made, each dustman is supplied with a sheet, on which he marks the number
of the house under its appropriate heading of " refusal" or " no answer." These sheets are handed into
the Public Health Office every morning and tabulated. If a complaint of non-removal of dust is made,
we can, by turning to the sheets, see whether it is the fault of the householder or dustman. The fulness
of the loads is checked by men appointed by the vestry, before delivery of the refuse at the shoot or
place of deposit. It would, in my opinion, be more satisfactory if each van-load were weighed, and
payment made per ton.
Holborn.—" The number of notices for the removal of dust continues to diminish, only 802
notices were received last year, whereas in 1896 the number was 1,361, and in 1895 as many as 2,114.
Since the 25th March, 1896, the Board's contract has provided for the removal of house refuse at
least once a week. These complaints that dust has not been removed show that the contract is not
strictly carried out, and the contractor's attention to the matter has frequently been requested by the
Board."
[8]