View report page

58
In Holborn there was failure to secure full compliance with the Council's by-law requiring a
weekly collection of dust. The following paragraph appears in the report of the medical officer of
health of that district.
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 first quarter of the year there was such a large increase in the number of notices that
the contractor was requested to appoint another foreman to attend to the removal of dnst. Although
the number of notices in the latter half of the year were much diminished, the total for the year was 988;
in 1898 the number was 849. However, in 1896, the number was 1,361, in 1895 as many as 2,114. 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.
Deposit and disposal of refuse.
The medical officer of health of Lambeth, in which are situated dust-yards and destructors
belonging to other sanitary authorities and to contractors, reports that great improvement was noticed
during the year in the condition of the various refuse and manure depots. Nuisance arising from
the dust destructor belonging to the Clerkenwell Vestry, and situated at Phoenix-wharf, Commercialroad,
led to the requirement of improvements which were carried out.
The deposit of refuse in Plumstead was the subject of complaint to the Council, and inquiry
was made into it, with the result that the Public Health Committee in May presented the following
report to the Council—
On 28th December last complaint was made to the Council that the Yestry of Plumstead were
infringing the Council's by-laws by depositing house refuse in the Church-manorway in close proximity
to inhabited houses. On the deposit being visited by the Council's inspector it was ascertained that the
complaint was well founded, and a letter was thereupon addressed to the vestry, who replied that house
refuse had been deposited without their knowledge and that they regretted the occurrence, but that the
deposit was never a nuisance and had been deeply buried in sound soil. From a further inspection made
recently it appears that no refuse is now being deposited and that the old deposit has been covered with
road scrapings. The medical officer reports that it is not at all clear that nuisance will not arise from
this deposit when the weather becomes warm, and he states that in his view what has been done is an
infringement of the Council's by-law which prohibits the deposit within 300 yards of inhabited houses
of matter liable to become offensive as well as matter which is actually offensive at the time of deposit.
Our attention has now been called to another deposit which also constitutes an infringement of the
Council's by-laws. This is on marsh land north of the railway and within 50 yards of inhabited houses.
The Council's inspector on visiting the spot found an area of 60 by 44 yards, upon which the parish yard
will be situated, being filled in to a depth of a few yards with slop and road scrapings containing
vegetable and other matter, and then covered over with about the same depth of gravel. At the time
of the inspector's visit a man in the employ of the vestry was at work on the shoot, levelling it. A
considerable surface of slop was uncovered. The occupier of a neighbouring house complained that his
premises were infested with flies during the summer months.
It thus appears that, although the vestry a few weeks ago stated that the deposit in Church-manorway
was made without their knowledge and that they regretted the occurrence, another deposit very near
to inhabited houses is now being effected with the full knowledge of the vestry's officials. We may point
out that similar infringements of the by-laws have occurred on repeated occasions during the past few
years, and have led to much correspondence between the vestry and the Council. Thus in 1893, complaint
was made of the deposit of refuse in Roydene-road, Slade-valley, and on our writing to the Plumstead
District Board on the subject, they replied that they had ordered the deposit to be discontinued. A few
months later, however, further complaint was made, and it was discovered that refuse had again been
deposited at this spot.
Again, in 1894, it was found that an embankment across the Slade-ravine was being made of house
refuse. The vestry made a special appeal to be allowed to continue this, and, as they assured us that
they would burn all vegetable matter and mix every load of house refuse with two loads of earth, we
stated that, having regard to these precautions, we thought the work might proceed without infringement
of the by-laws. Some months afterwards, however, it was ascertained that unsorted refuse containing
a large percentage of vegetable matter was being deposited and covered with gravel, and we were again
under the necessity of writing to the vestry on the subject.
In 1895 serious nuisance was caused by the deposit of house refuse on land known as Harper's
estate, and after correspondence with the vestry, we found it necessary to report the matter to the
Council, and advise it to take action, in default of the vestry, against their contractor. The Council
adopted the recommendation, but before proceedings could betaken the deposit was stopped and covered
in with earth; and on an undertaking being given by the contractor and landowner that it should be
left undisturbed for two years, the Council decided to take no further action. About a year afterwards
it was reported to us that the deposit had been cut into notwithstanding the undertaking, but, after
correspondence with the landowner, we did not find the matter sufficiently serious to justify proceedings.
From these instances it will be seen that we have had considerable difficulty with the vestry in the
matter of the enforcement of the Council's by-law, and that what has usually occurred has been that
when attention has been called to a particular spot, the deposit has been discontinued and covered in,
and shortly afterwards recommenced either in the same or another place.
It is evident that the vestry are not making any serious effort to secure the observance of the
by-law, and in the circumstances we think that the Council should authorise us to take such proceedings
as are necessary in the future, either against or in default of the vestry. The delay consequent upon
reporting the matter to the Council will then be obviated, and if nuisance arises in the hot weather,
it will be possible for us at once to place the matter in the hands of the solicitor.
We recommend that the Committee be authorised to take proceedings against or in default of the
Vestry of Plumstead respecting the deposit of offensive refuse in contravention of the Council's by-laws,
should necessity arise in the future.
The report of the Committee was adopted by the Council. No proceedings under this resolution
have as yet been instituted.
The condition of streets, due to the deposit by costermongers and others of rubbish, including
vegetable matter, was considered by the Vestries of Hackney and Camberwell, and instructions were
given for the issue of notices that offenders against the vestries' by-law relating to the deposit of refuse
in the streets would be prosecuted.