View report page

52
Southgate.—At the end of 1918 our Council applied for £1,301 towards
the increased cost of dealing with Southgate sewage during the four vears
ending 1918. In June the offer was submitted from Southgate to pay £164,
but in December £256 was offered and accepted, and another agreement for
three years, ending 31st March, 1921, as regards increased contributions in
the future from Southgate, was agreed on.
Enfield.—The sewage farm of the Enfield Urban District extends over
109 acres, and is entirely situate in Edmonton, lying to the north of our own
farm. There are six bacteriological filters.
HOUSE REFUSE DISPOSAL.
Edmonton does not possess a destructor; the sad but eventful story below
will show the necessity for it, as well as for an efficient collection.
In December, 1918, and up to March, 1919, the house refuse was still
deposited on the waste land in Park Road belonging to and lying west of the
Great Eastern Railway. In January, 40 complaints were received, and the
Council empowered the Public Health Committee to enforce the terms of the
contract.
In February there were 36 complaints, and a number of streets were not
cleared at all during the month, and others only partially; so in March the
Public Health Committee recommended that vans be purchased to pick up
arrears at the cost of the Contractor, and that two be bought for £72, the horses
and men to be provided by the Engineer's Department. The contract with
Knifton was to be submitted to the Council's Solicitor.
In March there were 37 complaints. -
In April there were three complaints. The refuse began to be deposited
on the farm. It was reported that no horses or men were available from the
Engineer's Department, and it was decided to hire a horse.
In May there were 13 complaints. A petition was received with reference
to the non-collection of dust from St. Mary's Road.
In June the Public Health Committee considered the question of the
collection directly by the Council with ten horses and vans and 20 men. Mr.
Butland estimated the cost of his scheme at £2,855 capital expenditure; eight
vans to be purchased to add to the two already bought; and he estimated that
the annual charges would be £2,892 for labour, £1,100 for horse keep, £25 for
repairs, and £100 for contingencies. This scheme was recommended to the
Council on the 24th June, together with a recommendation that the two horsedrawn
bedding vans be replaced by two motor vans, for £550, and a motor
brougham be provided for transport from hospital at £500, and that the Joint
Hospital Board be requested to provide motor transport to the hospital. On
that date the Engineer's report to the Works Committee was presented,