View report page

AGRICULTURE (SAFETY AND WELFARE PROVISIONS) ACT, 1965
The sections of this Act dealing with the provision, maintenance and cleanliness of sanitary
accommodation are administered by the Sanitary Authority. There are 41 agricultural units in
the Borough. It was not necessary to take statutory action against any of the owners or occupiers
but one land owner has been requested to improve the sanitary accommodation.
SHOPS ACT, 1950-1965
EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS ACT, 1938-1964
These Acts control the hours of employment of young persons including a restriction in
their employment at night and regulate the opening hours and half day closing of shops, Sunday
opening and compensatory leave and provide for rest and meal breaks for employees. In addition
to the routine checks made of shops during the course of visits under the Offices Shops and Railway
Premises Act, 66 visits were made in connection with shop closing hours. The language barrier
does not assist the administration of these Acts in shops occupied by immigrants and there is
difficulty in ensuring that the provisions relating to the employment of young persons are complied
with. London (Heathrow) Airport is specifically exempt from early closing by the Shops (Airports)
Act, 1962; there has not yet been any approach to the Council for the introduction of 6 day trading
in any other part of the Borough.
IMOISE
In an interim report the Noise Advisory Council concluded that the Noise Abatement Act
was inadequate for modern conditions and stated that they had been impressed by the enthusiasm
and professional skill which public health departments have given to the implementing of the Act.
There is difficulty in administering the Act because of the delay that must occur before a nuisance
order can be obtained. Fortunately very good co-operation has been received locally whenever
the statutory noise nuisance occurred at night and could have affected people's health by depriving
them of their sleep.
For the first time since 1965 complaints were made to this Department concerning noise
from Heathrow Airport. The complaints were caused by the use of the extension to Number 1
Runway. The noise nuisance was particularly severe when planes took off from the West or
Longford end of the runway. The G.L.C. Scientific Branch co-operated in measuring the sound
level and peak levels of 117 PNdB were recorded. It would not be practicable economically to
sound proof the average suburban dwelling against sound levels of this magnitude and even if
it were possible, with flights every two to three minutes leisure use of the garden would be
impossible. Noise or vibration caused by aircraft is exempt from the provisions of the Noise
Abatement Act, 1960. There should be a complete prohibition of domestic development within
a prescribed distance from a runway and any houses affected as seriously as those investigated
in the Longford area cannot be considered suitable for continued residential use.
In addition to the complaints of aircraft noise, 99 complaints of noise from other sources
were investigated. These complaints covered a wide spectrum and included:
Nuisance from neighbours caused by dogs barking, television and practising of musical
instruments;
Noise from commercial premises such as dance halls and public houses caused by loud
music played at the establishment and by the patrons leaving the premises at the end of a
session;
Nuisance from industrial premises arising from machinery and processes.
There is difficulty in deciding whether or not the nuisance exists if at the visit the noise is
inaudible or is stated to be at a lower volume than normal with the implication that this is because
the inspector's presence is known. In some cases the complainants have been asked to record
the noise when it is at a level at which they are complaining on a sealed tape recorder which is
examined by the Scientific Branch Laboratory of the Greater London Council. By use of this
method one complaint was substantiated, one unconfirmed and one complainant refused to
co-operate during winter. In this case the noise complained of was from an industrial process
and the complainant has offered to co-operate in the summer of 1971 alleging that the noise
has been a greater nuisance during warm weather.
103