View report page

57
proved. In Wandsworth 47 smoke nuisances were dealt with; in 3 cases legal proceedings were
instituted, in 2 cases penalties of £10 each were recovered and in the other the summons was withdrawn.
In Camberwell 33 instances of smoke nuisance were abated. In Deptford 52 observations
were made, and notices served in 6 instances. In Greenwich 136 observations were made, and
when necessary, notices served. In Woolwich 148 observations were made and legal proceedings
instituted in 21 cases, in 17 of which convictions were obtained and fines inflicted from 5 guineas
downwards ; the remaining 4 cases were withdrawn at the magistrates' suggestion.
A table contained in the report of the chief officer of the Public Control Department for
the year ended March, 1902, shows that 819 reports of smoke nuisance were sent by the County
Council to the borough councils during that period.
Removal of stable manure.
In previous reports I have referred to the increasing difficulty in securing the removal of
stable manure, and especially to the owners of small quantities. At the present time the sanitary
authority can only undertake the removal of manure when the owners are in agreement with
them or in the case of a particular collection when it is in such a condition that the sanitary
inspector is of opinion that it ought to be removed. The conference of London sanitary authorities
held in the County Hall in 1900 expressed the opinion that the sanitary authority should be
empowered to employ, if they thought fit, a sufficient number of scavengers or contract with any
scavengers, whether a company or individuals, for collecting and removing the manure and
other refuse matter from any stables and cow-houses within their district, at a charge to be fixed
by the local authority, or in the event of dispute by a police magistrate.
The medical officer of health of Kensington, in discussing this subject, cites the following
observations of the borough engineer in a report dealing with the utilisation of the borough council's
land at the Wood-lane depot, adjoining the West London Railway at Shepherd's-bush—
"Great and increasing difficulty is experienced in getting stable manure regularly removed. On
the one hand sanitary officials are pressing and prosecuting for more frequent removal, and on the other
hand the occupiers of stables have the greatest difficulty in getting market gardeners and others to send
for the manure. Take the Council's case, relative to their own stud of (about) 125 horses—a few
years ago market gardeners were contracting to clear the manure regularly twice a week and pay £100
per annum for it; now it costs the Council a small sum per annum to get rid of the said manure, with a
good deal of attendant bother to ensure regularity of removal. Stable manure should, in my opinion,
be regularly collected by the Council and should become their property, in the same way as the
statutes deal with house refuse, and steps should be taken to get the law amended accordingly."
The engineer's report was considered by a special committee, who, without proposing to
deal with the merits of the case as stated by the engineer, recommended that "provision should be
made for the necessary sidings which would allow of the Council, should they think fit at any
time in the future to do so, to undertake the removal of manure from the stables in the borough."
This recommendation was adopted by the borough council. Dr. Dudfield expresses the opinion
that the recommendation of the conference does not go far enough, and that the only useful
amendment would be "to make it the duty of the sanitary authority to remove the refuse at the
reasonable cost of the owner."
Steps were taken in a number of districts in connection with nuisance from manure. In
Westminster, 155 notices were served regarding accumulations of manure, 64 for the provision
of proper dung receptacles, and 49 for the removal of dung-pits which did not comply with the
County Council's by-law. 104 stables were re-drained, 97 paved and 58 cleansed. In St. Pancras,
proceedings were instituted in one case and a penalty recovered. In Lambeth, nuisance was complained
of in connection with stables in the Hackford-road, resulting from the disturbance of
peat moss manure at the time of renewal; Dr. Priestley points out that when the manure is
placed in at van directly from the stables, and without intervening deposit, nuisance at the time
of removal from the premises can be obviated. Dr. Caldwell Smith refers to the increasing
difficulty experienced by small tradesmen in Wandsworth in getting rid of their manure regularly
and in a satisfactory manner.
Removal of offensive trade refuse.
At the conference of London sanitary authorities held at the County Hall in 1900 a
resolution was adopted " that in the opinion of the conference the sanitary authority should be
empowered to employ, if they think fit, a sufficient number of scavengers, or contract with
any scavengers, whether a company or individuals, for collecting and removing trade refuse
of an offensive or noxious nature from any premises within their district, at a charge to be
fixed by the local authority, or, in the event of dispute, by a police magistrate. The subject
of removal of offensive trade refuse was also considered by a committee of the London County
Council, and in January, 1901, the committee presented the Council with a report containing
the following recommendation—" That the Local Government Board be also informed that in the
opinion of the Council the best solution of the difficulty with regard to the removal of fish offal
and other offensive refuse in London would be for its removal to be effected by the various sanitary
authorities at the expense of the occupiers." This recommendation was adopted.
The report of Dr. Davies as to the removal of trade refuse in Woolwich deserves to be
stated somewhat fully, inasmuch as the sanitary authority itself undertakes the collection. His
report contains the following extract from the report of Chief Inspector Duck—
"Trade refuse was formerly collected in the parish of Woolwich free of cost. The borough council
resolved that a charge should be made for collection as follows—1s. 6d. per load, or 2d. per bushel,
for the removal and disposal of inoffensive trade refuse; 3d. per receptacle for the removal and disposal
of offensive refuse. Subsequently it was arranged to charge 6d. for the use by tradesmen of the
destructor as a shoot for a load of inoffensive refuse, such amount to be prepaid. The contractors for
Plumstead and Eltham remove inoffensive trade refuse at 1s. 6d. per load. During the period from
[8]