View report page

15
the actual emission takes place in the early hours, perhaps in the dark when there is nobody
about to observe it. We get the complaints about the oily deposit on flat roofs and skylights.
I have also observed a relatively small automatic, thermostatically controlled, oil-fired plant which
gave a short burst of smoke every time the burners lighted up. These points require attention
and I should be glad to hear comments during the discussion.
Quite apart from visible smoke, we get complaints of the smell from oil-fired plants. With
buildings of varying height and with various excrescences on top, resulting in a completely crazy
skyline, the most unpredicable wind currents are created, and it may be very difficult to decide
which is the offending stack. At any rate stacks must be carried above the level of any obvious
obstructions in the vicinity.
Finally, what benefits do we expect from this legislation, seeing that the City is only a
square mile in the centre of London? Of course the smoke from all round will be blown over the
City according to the direction of the wind, but at least we expect to be free from the heavier
smoke particles which fall within a comparatively short distance of the point of emission from
a chimney. Moreover, in foggy weather there is usually little or no lateral movement of air,
and therefore we hope that, because we are not producing smoke in the City, our fogs will not
be "smogs". The reports from the smokeless zone of just over 100 acres in central Manchester
are encouraging, and we are very grateful to Manchester, not only for this encouragement, but
also for their help in the preparation of our Bill and during its second reading and its Committee
stage. Manchester is extending its smokeless zone, the City of London has gone to its boundaries
and must depend on neighbouring local authorities for any extension. They have a more
difficult problem, but we sincerely hope that they will tackle it in the near future.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) ACT, 1954
PART II.—SMOKB ABATEMENT.
Prohibition of emission of smoke in City.
4.—(1) As from the date fixed in pursuance of subsection (5) of this section and subject to
the other provisions of this section no smoke shall be emitted from any premises in the City.
(2) The occupier of any premises in the City from which smoke is emitted in contravention
of the provisions of this section shall on summary conviction be liable to a penalty not
exceeding Ten Pounds and to a daily penalty not exceeding Five Pounds:
Provided that it shall be a defence in any proceedings under this subsection to prove that
the smoke emitted—
(a) arose solely from a furnace stove or other appliance suitable for burning an
authorised fuel and properly maintained and used and so arose either—
(i) by burning that authorised fuel therein; or
(ii) by burning any other type of fuel therein and that such other type of fuel was
burnt therein for the reason that the authorised fuel for which the furnace stove or other
appliance was suitable was not available to the defendant and could not with reasonable
care and foresight on his part have been available to him at the time the smoke was
emitted; or
(b) arose by burning any fuel whether an authorised fuel or not which may have been
approved by the Common Council as suitable for the furnace stove or other appliance in
which it was burnt in accordance with such conditions and during such period as may have
been approved as aforesaid in relation to such furnace stove or other appliance.
In this subsection the expression "authorised fuel" means coke anthracite or any other
fuel from time to time approved as being an authorised fuel by resolution of the Common Council.
(3) The occupier of any premises who—
(a) by reason of a restriction affecting his interest in the premises is unable to execute
works for the purpose of complying with the provisions of this section; or
(b) considers that the owner of the premises or any other person having an interest
therein should contribute towards the cost of the execution of works as aforesaid and is
unable to agree with the owner or such other person as to whether such a contribution should
be made or as to the amount thereof;
may apply to the Mayor's and City of London Court for an order to enable the execution of such
works as may be necessary for the purpose of complying with the provisions of this section or
(as the case may be) to direct the owner of the premises or any other person who appears to the
Court to have an interest therein to contribute towards the cost of suoh works as aforesaid
such an amount as appears to the Court in all the circumstances of the case to be fair and
reasonable and the said Court may on such application make an order in respect of either or
both of the matters aforesaid accordingly.
(4) The Common Council may if they think fit contribute the whole or part of the
expense necessarily incurred by any person in connection with the execution of works for the
purpose of complying with the provisions of this section whether in compliance with an order
under the last foregoing subsection or otherwise.
(5) The foregoing provisions of this section shall come into operation on such date
after the first day of October nineteen hundred and fifty-five as may be fixed by resolution of the
Common Council of which date at least six months' notice shall be given by publishing a notice
in a local newspaper circulating in the City.