View report page

SMOKE NUISANCES.
City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1954
Clean Air Act, 1956.
During the year 78 complaints of smoke nuisances were received. 69 of these were confirmed
and emanated from the following sources:—
1. Oil-fired furnaces 51 (73.9%)
2. Solid Fuel Furnaces 4 ( 5.8%)
3. Domestic appliances 2 ( 2.9%)
4. Incinerators 4 ( 5.8%)
5. Bonfires 8 (11.6%)
The main cause of nuisances from furnaces in (1) and (2) was improper maintenance of good
equipment. In two cases it became necessary to consider the renewal of equipment during the
coming summer season. In the case of one solid fuel furnace the owner abated the nuisance by
acting upon the recommendation of the Free Sales and Technical Advisory Service of the National
Coal Board. Nuisances from domestic appliances occured either when unsuitable fuel was used,
or was not available.
Nuisances caused by smoke and fly-ash emissions from two inefficient incinerators resulted
in recommendations being made for their replacement..
Bonfire nuisances arose mainly from the disposal of low density building materials on demolition
sites. A satisfactory measure of co-operation was maintained in all cases with the exception
of one persistent offender who was proceeded against under the provisions of Section 16,
Clean Air Act, 1956.
An Order was made by the Court, prohibiting a recurrence of the nuisance.
NOISE
The control of noise was one of the foremost problems during the year. Complaints, from the
occupiers of both residential and office accommodation most frequently centered upon demolition
site clearance and building operations. Other complaints concerned commercial activity
and noise from vehicles.
Two types of development are prevalent in the City. Firstly the piecemeal demolition and
erection of buildings adjacent to or between existing buildings and secondly the massive, or
comprehensive, development schemes. The former gives rise to nuisance from the direct transmission
of hammering, drilling and allied noises, possibly restricted to one occupier and often
working schedules can be adjusted to offer sufficient relief. In the case of the latter, comprehensive
development, the sheer weight of power production and heavier machinery..
In addition building operations within buildings can give rise to complpints from other occupiers
within the building.. An effect of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963 has
been an increase in the number of alterations to existing accommodation. On occasions such
work has been commenced mid-week but interference with office working has been such that the
alterations have been deferred until weekend involving costly overtime working. This is an
instance where the development of less noisy techniques would be of benefit to employers.
Mostly complaints have been tempered with an awareness that necessary work was being
carried out, the City being no exception to the rule of change. Behind this tolerant mood is a
quickness to report what is considered to be avoidable noise, such as mechanical defect or lack
of lubrication and similar faults which can be expected to be remedied.
On the 4th November, 1964 it was announced in the House of Commons as part of major
policy that a standstill in new offices in London would be imposed. As a side effect of this
policy it can be thought of in relation to the noise problem. Obviously of no immediate impact,
but as current building projects are completed change in the pattern of noise from building is a
matter for interesting conjecture.
The Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Alan Wilson, F.R.S. presented its final report
on the problem of noise to Parliament in July, 1963. As was to be expected the findings and recommendations
expressed in the report continued to fashion thought during 1964. Generally the
need for research was stressed and relating to the building and demolition operations included
reference to need for attention to design and operators of plant. Locally knowledge is being gained
and complaints carefully investigated, but as stated the report was to Parliament and research
by and report from a central authoritative body would be most beneficial towards achieving standards
of control, clear guidance and uniformity of action.
In its present state noise control compares with smoke control concepts of some years ago.
Ultimately control will depend upon research and standards, accepted or imposed. It will be expensive
but well worth while in improving the well being and comfort of a great many.
6