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

View report page

Kensington 1891

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Kensington]

This page requires JavaScript

178
NUISANCE FROM BRICK-BURNING.
The reality of the nuisance in Kensington from brickburning,
in localities beyond the limits of the parish, is unquestionable,
and the law is strong enough to put a stop to it ; but
the process is tedious and costly, as was proved in three important
actions, decided in the course of the years 1885 and 1890,
in respect of nuisances arising from this cause, at Streatham,
Hampstead, and Hammersmith, respectively, to which reference
was made in previous reports.
The nuisance results mainly from the use of dust-bin ashes
in the making of the bricks, and the use of dust-bin " breeze,"
or cinders in the burning of the bricks, both ashes and breeze
being highly charged with organic matter of animal and vegetable
origin, the frizzling of which, in slow combustion in the
open " clamps " gives rise to the stench. It has always appeared
to me that this is a matter that should be dealt with by legislation,
and, with this object, the Society of Medical Officers of
Health approached the late Metropolitan Board of Works,
some years ago, in a communication intimating that, in their
opinion, (1) there were sufficient reasons for regulating the
trade of brick-making by bye-laws, as other offensive trades
have been regulated, with manifest advantage to the public ;
and (2) that, owing to the considerable distance to which the
effluvia of brick-burning travel, and to the fact that many of
the brickfields contributing to the nuisance are outside the
Metropolitan area, legislation should be general, and apply to
areas within a specified distance of centres of population.
The Board took no action in the matter, but in their final
Annual Report (for 1888-89) they acknowledged the gravity
of the nuisance, and expressed the opinion that this trade
among other "nuisance trades" could be carried on with little
or no offence if proper regulations were persistently enforced
and if there close were supervision.
Your Vestry took occasion, upon my report of continued
nuisance and reiterated complaint, in 1889, to call the