London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Willesden 1909

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Willesden]

This page requires JavaScript

60
HOUSE REFUSE REMOVAL.
In the following tables are given the data relating to the Collection
of House Refuse.
In Tables 28 and 29, the period for which the data are given is
divided into two quinquennia. During the first of these (1900-1904-5)
the cost of refuse removal was high, and was rapidly increasing both in
respect of the total cost per annum and of the relative cost per cubic
yard, per house, and per head of population.
Upon the completion of the contract in March, 1905, in which the
total cost of house refuse removal had reached the high figure of
£10,929, I prepared comparative tables of cost and quantities of refuse
removal, which were embodied in my Annual Report for the year 1904
and reproduced in a report on the Collection of House Refuse, submitted
in the first instance to the Motors and Dust Destructor Committee.
In the report it was pointed out that not only the cost, but the
quantity also of house refuse removed per head and per house had gone
steadily up during the preceding eight years. It was further pointed
out that " the increase in quantity per house has not kept pace with
the increased quantity per head, for while per house the increase in the
eight years ending 1903 amounts to 25 6 per cent., that per head has
gone up by 37-5 per cent." As a result of investigation it was discovered
that while " the average amount per annum collected from houses of all
classes amounted to 4 4 cubic yards, that from business premises of all
classes amounted to 21 *8 cubic yards per annum." I concluded that
" the disproportionate increase in the amount of refuse collected per
person, as well as the amount collected per house, is due either to an
increased proportion of business premises in the district or to an
increased contribution from them of what is termed domestic refuse.
As a consequence of this investigation, which left little doubt that
a large amount of " trade refuse" was being removed as "house refuse"
at the public cost—a procedure for which there was neither statutory