View report page

80
The reference of the Borough Surveyor of Lewisham to the low death-rate of the
Parish of Lewisham, as justifying the non-use of intercepting traps will be dealt with
later. It is alluded to by the Borough Surveyor of Shoreditch in his remarks deprecating
the use of intercepting traps, which we will now proceed to comment on, taking
the eight paragraphs he devotes to attacking them seriatim.
In the first paragraph the Surveyor states that he strongly supports the idea of
having no interceptors. From what he has seen "even in ShoTeditch, where they seem
to be put in on every conceivable opportunity,'' his conviction is strengthened that they
are more "a trouble and nuisance than anything else." With regard to this we would
say that, so far as we are aware, in Shoreditch, interceptors are only used in connection
with drains when the bye-laws require that they shall be used, and so far as our
experience goes, their use does not materially add to the trouble and nuisance which is
ordinarily associated with the construction and use of house drains.
In the second paragraph the statement is made that the constant blocking and
difficulty of clearing is a "prolific source of annoyance to all who have to do with them,
and when placed under the public footway they are a frequent cause of obstruction to
traffic when being attended to." This statement must be characterised as exaggerated
and misleading.
The Officers of the Health Department have most to do with the use of intercepting
traps in Shoreditch and are best acquainted with the nuisances which from time
to time are experienced in connection with them. Undoubtedly intercepting traps do
become obstructed occasionally. All traps dependent upon a water seal for their effective
action are liable to be blocked, but so far as our experience goes, the fact that
a trap is used for intercepting house drains from the sewer does not materially add to
this liability. From enquiries made for the purposes of this report we can say that
obstructions in connection with intercepting traps have caused only a comparatively
small proportion of the number of blockages in drains which have come under the
notice of the Health Department during the past few years, as the following figures
will show:—
Inspector Lear reports that during the past four years, of 54 cases of obstructions
in drains, or the pipes and apparatus in connection therewith, in six instances only was
the. blockage in the intercepting trap. For the same period Inspector Firth reports six
instances in 59 cases of drain obstruction, and Inspector Jordan nine in 44 cases. Inspector
Langstone reports that from September, 1901, to December, 1904, he had 16
instances in which interceptors were blocked in 59 cases of obstructed drains, and Inspector
Clements from September, 1903, to December, 1904, has not met with a single
instance in which the interceptor was the cause of the blockage in some 28 cases of
obstructed drains which have come under his notice during that period. In many of
the obstructed drains there were no intercepting traps to become blocked.
We estimate that about 14 per cent. of the obstructions in connection with drains
which have come under the notice of the Health Department in recent years have been
due to blockages in intercepting traps. In the great bulk of the cases the obstructions
in the drains have had nothing to do with intercepting traps.