View report page

60
The Council's by-laws require each sanitary authority to cause to be removed not less frequently
than once in every week the house refuse produced on all premises within their district. Moreover,
section 30 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891, requires every sanitary authority to secure the due
removal of house refuse at proper periods.
It is manifest from the recent inquiry that the vestry do not secure the removal of house refuse as
required by the Council's by-laws, and that a weekly call is not made at all premises with this
object, although nearly two years ago the vestry stated that they had given instructions for this to be
done. The circumstances of the case in our opinion are so serious as to necessitate proceedings by the
Council against the vestry under the Act, and we think that the Council should at once apply to the
Local Government Board for its sanction to such proceedings as required by section 117 (3). We
recommend—
(a) That application be made to the Local Government Board for its sanction to the Council
taking proceedings against the Vestry of Camberwell under the Public Health (London) Act, 1891,
for not securing the due removal at proper periods of house refuse from premises in the parish.
(b) That, in the event of the sanction of the Local Government Board being obtained, the
solicitor be instructed to take proceedings against the vestry under that Act.
The Committee subsequently reported that they had received a letter from the vestry clerk
stating that the vestry had approved his action in putting on necessary additional hired horses and
men, and making such provisional alterations in the system of dust collection as would ensure the
dustmen calling at least once a week at every house in the parish. The vestry clerk also stated
that the vestry had decided to continue these arrangements as a temporary measure, and he asked
that, as a full scheme was under consideration by a committee, the Council would adjourn further
action for the present. The Council, on the advice of the Public Health Committee, acceded to
this request.
In May of 1897 the Public Health Committee had recommended the Council to apply to the
Local Government Board for their sanction to the Council taking proceedings against the Vestry of
St. Marylebone for not securing the due removal at proper periods of house refuse from premises
in the parish. The vestry having decided to make arrangements for a house-to-house call, the
report of the committee was withdrawn. In May, 1898, the committee reported to the Council
that they were informed by the vestry that this arrangement had been in force since September of
1897.
The Public Health Committee had tinder consideration the question whether it was possible
by the employment of well designed dust-carts to prevent the nuisance which was frequently
experienced from the blowing of dust in course of removal about the streets. The Council, in
December, decided to offer a prize of £25 for the best design of a dust-cart which would enable
house refuse to be removed without causing nuisance. The need for better vehicles, and for
more care in the removal of house refuse, is referred to in the report of the medical officer of health
of Plumstead, who states that " the dust-carts are frequently over-loaded, and never properly
covered, with the result that dust is frequently spilt on the ground and even more frequently
blown about in the air. There is urgent need for proper dust-carts with hinged doors."
The results of the Council's efforts to secure a weekly collection of house
refuse throughout London by means of the dust-cart calling at each house has been attended
by considerable success. Wherever this method has been practised the number of complaints
have been reduced to very small proportions, but householders still not infrequently put difficulties
in the way of the collection by refusing to allow the removal of their refuse. Inasmuch as such
action constitutes " obstruction " within the meaning of the Public Health Act, it would be well
that proceedings should be instituted against such persons in districts where this action causes
serious difficulty. In Hackney the number of refusals averaged some 8,000 per week. At the instance
of the Greenwich District Board the occupier of a house was fined two pounds for this offence.
The medical officer of health of Islington, referring to the reduction in the number of complaints
as to non-removal of house refuse since the institution of a weekly call at each house in
that district, says that a statement as to the number of complaints since 1891 shows clearly that
the position of Islington, " as regards the storage of refuse, so often of a noxious character, is very
different from what it was prior to 1895, for whereas then not only the householders but the sanitary
inspectors were constantly complaining of the state of affairs, now they are hardly ever heard.
Indeed, most of the complaints, few as they are, that now reach the Public Health Department,
are to the effect that a removal of the dust is not made more tan once a week. When one
remembers the outcry that was made in 1895, about the upsetting of household arrangements that
a weekly collection would involve, one's astonishment is all the greater that even a single request
should be made for a more frequent removal." The number of applications by householders for the
removal of house refuse was in successive vears as follows 1891, 10,138; 1892, 9,964, 1893,
4,986; 1894, 4,506 ; 1895, 2,506; 1896, 245 1897, 312 ; 1898, 303.
Need for further improvement in the system of refuse removal is referred to in the report
of the medical officer of health of Fulham, who states that " the weekly service for the removal of
house refuse has been fairly satisfactory, and there have been fewer complaints respecting the
delay in removal than in former years; but I would again urge upon the vestry the necessity for
a more frequent removal of refuse from flats, at any rate, during the hot weather." The medical
officer of health of Holborn writes—" The number of notices received for the removal of dust was
849 rather more than for 1897, when the number was 802. 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. Many of the notices 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. The Board is endeavouring to have this work, and the
cleansing of the streets, &c more satisfactorily carried out by paying the contractor a larger
amount and by the appointment of an inspector of cleansing in addition to the street inspector.
The experience of recent years has shown that the employment of a contractor for the removal of
house refuse produces less satisfactory results than when this work is in the hands of the officers