View report page

91
DRAIN PLANS AND DRAINAGE.
During the year the duties of drainage inspectors were carried out by the same
two officers as in the previous year, viz.: Inspector Gorniot and Inspector J. C.
Wilson. The only difference made was that for the greater part of 1912, the former
had charge of the district South of Marylebone Road, and the latter that to the North
of this boundary.
The total number of inspections made was 9,826 as against 7,819 in 1911, and
8,323 in 1910.
The number of plans relating to drainage of new buildings was 79 (North 21,
South 58).
In the case of old buildings, the number of plans received was 515 (North 211,
South 304). The total number of plans deposited was 594, the number for 1911 being
543, and that for 1910, 622.
Below, particulars are given of an interesting case which was instituted on
account of breaches of the drainage By-laws of the London County Council. The
precise breach in connection with the construction of the soil pipe was that whereas
the By-laws require that where the necessity arises for the construction of this pipe
inside any premises lead shall be used. The defendant in the case introduced iron.
Though his attention was directed to the matter more than once and he was requested
to replace the iron by lead, he refused to do so.
A report on the matter was considered by the Public Health Committee, and
regarding the case as an important one, they gave instructions that a summons should
be applied for.
At the hearing the magistrate having learned that the soil pipe was situated
partly inside and partly outside the premises, the portions being practically equal in
length, decided that the by-law could not apply and consequently dismissed the
summons.
Having regard to the fact that it was impossible to conceive of an instance in
which the whole length of a soil pipe could be inside premises, and that the County
Council had some years previously drawn attention to the necessity of having any
portion of a soil pipe inside a house or other building constructed in lead, the Public
Health Committee, with the consent of Council, appealed against the magistrate's
decision.
At the appeal the Judges decided in favour of the Council with costs and sent
the case back to the magistrate. The particulars with regard to the case and the
amount of the penalties eventually imposed are noted below.
By-laws of London County Council made under the Metropolis
Management Act, 1855, Section 202, and the Metropolis
Management Acts Amendment (By-laws) Act, 1899.
Drainage.
Fine.
Costs.
21, Upper Berkeley Street Executing sanitary work without
notice to the Sanitary Authority
10/-
2/-
Constructing a soilpipe in contravention
of the By-laws
20/-
2/-