View report page

13
Rodent Control.—As indicated in Table 6, fewer premises were found to be infested with the ship rat
and the common rat. The average size of the infestations also was smaller than formerly. Consequently,
the demand for the Council's services was not so great as in recent years. A minimum charge of ten
shillings was made in respect of each treatment at business premises but to private residents the
service was free.
The scheme of block treatment commenced late in 1040 was continued and most of the known areas
of infestation within the Borough have been surveyed and treated. Mice were rather more troublesome
than last year and although the baits used against them were varied from time to time, no bait was
found to be completely satisfactory.

Owners and occupiers co-operated generally by carrying out the proofing work advised and by
giving attention to the drainage defects found. In no case was formal action under the Prevention
of Damage by Pests Act, 1949, found to be necessary but 240 informal notices were served. Two
notices were issued under the London County Council bye-laws in respect of drainage defects.
Sewers were baited at 277 points in January and at 246 points in June.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries expressed satisfaction with the work carried out by the
Council since the 1949 Act came into operation. They considered the results most encouraging, and
regarded the progress made, particularly in the extended use of the " block treatment " system, as
having a high community value, especially in the present economic situation. It was further suggested
that an easing of such an effort would be false economy, since rodent control measures are now of
even greater importance than ever before.
During the year two rodent operatives resigned to take up other employment. In view of the
satisfactory progress of the work throughout the area the vacancies were not filled.
Dog Nuisance.—Contraventions of the bye-law relating to the fouling of footways by dogs reported
by the streets nuisance inspector resulted in summonses in 20 cases. In 14 of these convictions were
secured and penalties imposed. The remaining six cases were dismissed on payment of costs.
Metal plates bearing the warning " Any person in charge of a dog who allows it to foul the footway
is liable to be prosecuted " were affixed to lamp-standards at numerous points in the Borough. Despite
this and other forms of publicity, the nuisance is still troublesome although the condition of the
pavements in the Borough has undoubtedly improved since the local bye-law came into operation
in 1928 during which time a total of 506 prosecutions have been taken. The Council, however, felt
that attention should be given to the problem over a wider area, and representations were therefore
made to the Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing Joint Committee who agreed to invite all metropolitan
borough councils to consider whether they could take any appropriate action to secure the enforcement
of their own bye-laws in view of the nuisance and danger to public health resulting from the fouling
of footways by dogs.
Pigeons.—Section 121 of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, empowers the Council, for the purpose
of abating or mitigating nuisance, annoyance or damage, to arrange for the seizure or destruction of
pigeons in excess of such numbers as the Council consider reasonable. Accordingly, an authorised
pigeon catcher, who operates under the direction of the Medical Officer of Health, has been employed
for many years, without cost to the Council, to seize and dispose of pigeons congregating at places
in the Borough to which he is directed. During 1952, six complaints of nuisance from these birds,
relating to four premises, were referred to the pigeon catcher after investigation.
Noise.—Complaints of 32 noise nuisances were received. Their infinite variety may be gathered from
the following selection of alleged causes: radio, piano practising, a club orchestra, a dance hall,
factory machinery of many kinds, delivery of goods to tradesmen's premises, garages, a coach park,
boys playing games, dogs, and shouting tenants. Most of these nuisances were abated after informal
action by the sanitary inspector or streets nuisance inspector. In the remainder, where upon
investigation it appeared that the Department had no power to take direct action, the complaints
were referred to the appropriate authority.