View report page

67
The presence and shape of the Swin and projecting knock are suggestive of
a peculiar condition of flow, but one is hardly prepared for the findings that floats
laid at low water at the Swin mouth are actually carried northward and eastward
past Shoeburyness and over the Maplin Sands as the tide flows, so that as Mr.
Deane reports " at neap tides most of the water required to cover the Maplin
Sands in front of Shoeburyness finds its way through the Knock Swin passing
to the north-east. Had it been possible to follow the floats further, I should have
expected them to have continued on, in a north-easterly direction, under the
influence of the ebb tides."
The significance of this is that a portion of the last emptyings of the proposed
sewer would be carried, on the rising tide, away over the Maplin Sands in a welldiluted
state by a back eddy current due to Shoeburyness. This current helps
to account for the persistent shape and position of the Knock Swin, a curve roughly
north and east.
The two areas of foreshore affected by the flood flow of the ebb tailings from
the sewer would be the areas C and D which have been placed under orders by your
Worshipful Committee as shell fish layings.
I am of opinion that the question of pollution of shell fish beds is but little
affected by the proposed change of outfall position, any slight disadvantage in
areas C and D being compensated by slight improvement in areas A and B owing
to the moving of the outfall to the E.S.E.
This consideration only applies to dry-weather sewage flows, and even so,
the lessened degree of purification proposed and increase of population since the
foreshore shell fish beds of this district were under review have to be borne in
mind. It is advantageous that the area D under the Shell fish Orders of the Port
Sanitary Authority was so arranged as to include the lower portion of the Maplin
Sands.
The interests of the Port of London Sanitary Authority are foreshore pollution
and pollution of shell fish layings. The shell fish layings of this district are
already under Orders.
I therefore suggested that there is no cause for opposition to the present
Southend Sewage Scheme by this Authority.
SEWAGE WORKS.
STROOD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL.
In June notice was received that the Strood Rural District Council proposed
constructing sewage disposal works in close proximity to the Isolation Hospital
of this Authority at Denton.
It was stated:—
"The sewage will only be retained in the tanks some 15 or 16 hours and will be discharged
in a fresh condition. No sludge will be allowed to accumulate in the sedimentation
tanks. The crude sludge will never be exposed, but will be removed in cast-iron pipes
from the bottom of the settling tanks to about mid-depth in the digestion tank, in which
it will be retained for some four months before being discharged on to the draining beds."
The following data was submitted:—
Present population, about 1,200.
Prospective population, provided for, 1,500.
Dry-weather flow, 20 gallons per head, equals 30,000 gallons per day.
Maximum flow to be dealt with, 3 D.W.F., equals 90,000 gallons per day.
The position selected for the sludge beds is within 300 feet of the staff residence
and wards of the Hospital, and your Medical Officer pointed out that already
the staff and patients at the Hospital experience serious nuisance at times from
the Gravesend sewage works, which are some distance away, and to construct
sewage works within 300 feet of the residential block at Denton Hospital would
be very undesirable.
The Strood Rural District Council were, therefore, informed that opposition
to their proposal would be made by the Port of London Sanitary Authority.
I