View report page

58
Clerkenwell.—The medical officer of health reports that the Works Committee applied for and
received from the vestry the necessary powers to establish the system of weekly collection from every
house in the district, and he states that " considering the short time the system has been in use it
works smoothly and well, and complaints which used to be so numerous are now few and far between."
St. Luke.—"As regards the collection of house refuse the dustmen call at all houses once in
each week in order to remove the contents of the ashpits, but inquiries made of householders during
the inspection appear to show that collection depends to some extent upon whether the householder
considers there is or is not sufficient accumulation for removal at the time that the dustmen call, the
result being that in some cases the refuse, only small in amount, and probably filling only part of the
receptacle, is allowed to remain on the premises till the next week."
City.—The medical officer of health states that the skip system, which was adopted experimentally
in 1892, " has been gradually extended until at the end of 1897 no less than 747 had been
supplied at the public expense.' So far, he says, the system has been confined almost exclusively to
property of the tenement class, and that it would be a great advantage from a public health point of
view if the adoption of this plan could be extended to the whole of the City. If this is not done he
suggests that the prohibition of the Commissioner of Police of the removal of refuse between 10 a.m.
and 7 p.m. which now applies to certain streets should be extended to other streets. He refers to a
report he presented to the Commissioners of Sewers in 1892 in which he pointed out that public dustbins
were misused by the deposit in them of trade refuse, and in which he stated that " The remedy
for this evil will be found in the extension of the skip system and the entire removal of all the public
dustbins throughout the City."
St. Olave.—The annual report states that dust removal continues to be carried out regularly and
efficiently, and that for the fourth year in succession not a single complaint of neglect or inattention
was received, but in 612 instances the dustmen reported failure to obtain the removal of house refuse
and in 44 of these, notices were served.
Woolwich.—" The pail system continues to work most satisfactorily. The dust is removed weekly
from every house in the district, and from some of the streets in the poorer parts of the town twice or
thrice weekly."
Plumstead.—The medical officer of health reports that under a former contractor the removal
was unsatisfactory, but " since the contract was transferred, matters have been far worse, and came to
a crisis at Christmas-time, when the collection quite broke down, and in a large number of streets the
dust was not collected for three weeks." "The Works Committee instructed the surveyor to employ
men and carts to collect the dust at the contractor's expense, if he did not re-establish a proper
collection before a certain date. This threat had the desired effect, and since then the collection has
been more satisfactory, though there is still much room for improvement."
Disposal of house refuse.
In referring to the subject of disposal of house refuse, the medical officer of health of Kensington
points out that the time must ultimately come when the refuse will have to be cremated in or
near the parish, and that the " vestry now possess a site in Wood-lane, where presumably a destructor
and an electric light installation may be advantageously located." The medical officer of health of
Fulham writes that the vestry have finally decided to proceed at once with the erection of a dust
destructor, and to utilise the heat generated by the cremation of the refuse for the production of
electric light. The medical officer of health of Hackney states that he regards the presence of the
large accumulation of filth at the shoot in the neighbourhood of Hackney Wick " as a menace to
this and neighbouring districts," and that he would desire to see the Hackney refuse burned
in a well-designed destructor. In St. Luke " the refuse is at the present time taken to a
wharf in the City-road basin of the Regent's-canal and thence removed by barge; but this
method of disposal will shortly cease on the completion of the dust destructor which is being
erected for the use of the district." In Woolwich " the destructor, provided by the Board,
works very satisfactorily both by day and night." In Rotherhithe the vestry has approved the detailed
plans of a destructor and invited tenders. The medical officer of health of Lambeth states that he
advised the vestry to "take legal proceedings against the City of London and Clerkenwell Vestry in
respect of the way in which their respective depots were being kept," and he refers to " the old fashioned,
but disgusting and degrading method of human beings sorting and sifting the rubbish—the workers
standing waist-deep for several hours at a time—both at the City of London and the Clerkenwell dust
yards in the Commercial-road, Lambeth." The report of the medical officer of health of Battersea
contains reference to the Mill Pond-bridge wharf, Nine Elms-lane, where house refuse is sorted and sifted
by men and women, and from which nuisance was experienced, for the abatement of which notice was
served. In Plumstead steps were taken to prevent the continuance of the shooting of house refuse " on
Wright's estate, High-street, within 100 yards of houses." The medical officer of the north district
of Poplar discusses the use as a dust shoot of land at the bottom of Marshgate-lane.
Nuisance from sewer ventilators.
The subject of nuisance from sewer ventilators is discussed in several of the reports of medical
officers of health In the early part of 1898 a conference of the engineers and surveyors of the
several vestries and district boards was held at the County Hall. The conference was presided over
by the Council's chief engineer, and the following resolutions were adopted—
1. That the closing of 6ewer ventilators in response to complaints increases the general evil, the
diminution of which is to be attained by the multiplication of the ventilators at regular frequent
intervals.
2. That in connection with any interceptor hereafter fixed on a main house drain it is advisable to
carry up a ventilating pipe from the sewer side of the interceptor, up the front, side, or back of the
house, to the satisfaction of the local sanitary authority, and that the outlet drain from the interceptor
shall not be flap-trapped in sewer, unless required by the local sanitary authority.
3. That pipe ventilators up buildings, or otherwise where possible, should always be adopted, in
addition to surface ventilation.