View report page

50
buildings, the more especially since it would have been easy
to have planned the structure in such a way that no
embarrassing questions could have arisen.
Bye-laws with regard to Basement Closets.
Under the same section of the Public Health (London)
Act, tlier ■ is a bye-law prohibiting the construction of a
watercloset below the surface of the ground unless it has
an area or open space "measuring at least forty superficial
feet in extent, and having a distance across of not less than
five feet, and not covered in otherwise than by a grating or
railing."
This bye-law may be unobjectionable as applied to new
buildings, but it is unreasonable as applied to old and
existing buildings.
If carried out with strictness it would absolutely prevent
desirable improvements, such, for example, as the removal
of a watercloset from the centre of a dwelling to an area,
which, although not strictly complying with the bye-law,
would afford a more suitable and sanitary position.
In a recent case the London County Council complained
that a certain workshop had insufficient sanitary accommodation.
The premises are so constructed that it is
impossible to comply with the Statute and with the bye-law.
The owner has given more accommodation ; accommodation
in compliance with the Statute, not in compliance with the
bye-law. The County Council now write complaining of the
local authority permitting the erection of the convenience.
The proposed new lavatory accommodation at the Town
Hall is absolutely in contravention of the bye-law in
question. No improvement in that direction is possible if
the bye-law is to be observed
The writer's consistent advice to the local authority has
been that, in all such instances, the bye-law is mischievous
and should be ignored, and that an excellent case can be
made for defence on the ground of the bye-law being
unreasonable.