View report page

REPORT ON THE SANITARY INSPECTION
of the
DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 1948
By G. A. Webber,
Chief Sanitary Inspector, Beckenham Borough Council.
The many calls on the services of the Sanitary Inspectors were maintained
during the year 1948. In the earlier months of the year our support
was sought for almost every licence application, but with the raising of
the "free" limit from £10 to £100 the position eased. 374 licence
applications were supported compared to 500 in 1947.
The sense of frustration imposed by our inability speedily to act
in the face of so many controls remained. One has the greatest sympathy
with owners (and, of course, occupiers) whose desire to restore their
properties to a proper and reasonable degree of comfort is hampered by
restriction, however necessary that restriction may be ; and one must
continue to deplore the actions of those who use every possible artifice
to evade their responsibilities. The hands of such persons have considerably
been strengthened by the existence of control and restriction
in the execution of work to property, and they have not been slow to take
full advantage of their opportunities. It is pleasing to record that such
persons are few in number, but nevertheless proper to emphasize the
costly nature of the administrative work necessitated by their actions ;
what time insanitary and unhygienic conditions must perforce continue
to exist. The desired result is, however, finally achieved by the systematic
closing of all loopholes through which escape is possible.
I should like, on the other hand, once again to express appreciation
and thanks to the vast majority of persons with whom our work brings
us into contact, usually with the object of pointing out that they are
required to take certain action in a particular matter. Co-operation is,
generally, readily forthcoming and here one should specifically mention
the owners of rented properties in the Borough, so many of whom still
receive pre-war rentals and are required to maintain increasing standards
of comfort at post-war price levels. Although the contrary may have
been assumed to be the case, therein lies the reason for the institution of
Housing Act procedure to many of our properties which, by dint of age,
and enforced neglect during the years of war, coupled with bomb damage,
had reached such a pitch of disrepair and insanitation as to warrant the
closest attention. A Local Authority has a specific duty in such cases to
institute measures of remedy, by the implementation of the Public Health
and/or the Housing Acts. There is an important difference between
these two Acts. Items of disrepair and sanitary defects may properly
be dealt with by each but in the case of the Public Health Act, providing
a nuisance is proved, and the person legally in default is before the Court,
the Bench have to make an Order requiring abatement, from which there
is no appeal. The Housing Act, on the other hand, gives certain rights
of appeal. Accordingly it is fairer to an owner of property, where
numerous sanitary defects or nuisances exist, to allow him the facilities
provided by the law. We do, of course, still serve far more Notices under
the Public Health Act than under the Housing Act, the properties dealt