View report page

16
an outlying district of the metropolis, possessing a considerable
quantity of ground not yet built upon, which consists to a great
extent of sand and gravel, the persons building new houses
frequently removed the natural ground and replaced it with
offensive rubbish. That in other parts of the District very large
excavations had been made, from which brick-earth had been
taken away and the excavations filled in with refuse.
That many houses are now being erected on the said deposits,
and the Board therefore required an answer to the following
questions:—
1. Whether under any of the Nuisances Removal, Sanitary,
or other Acts, the Board could, by application to the
Court of Chancery or any other Court, obtain an order
restraining, for the future, the building of houses on
such deposit as above described, until the whole area
of the building is covered from wall to wall with a
layer of concrete sufficiently thick to prevent the
entrance of injurious gases into the houses ?
Answer: I think not; the foundations me to be on solid
ground or on concrete, and if the foundations are so
constructed, I know of no Act to restrain the owner
from making any such deposit as that referred to.
2. This refers to letting houses after they are built.
3. Whether it is possible that a magistrate would grant an
order for the removal of the deposit under the Nuisances
removal Act ?
Answer: Yes, if it be proved that the accumulation is such
as to be a nuisance or injurious to health. I must
add that each case must stand on its own merits, as
the magistrate would require some direct proof that
the refuse in question was injurious to health.
4. This question referred to the power, if any, to refuse
consent to the drainage of such houses.
Answer generally on the case. I believe that the question of
a proper sub-soil to houses is one of the greatest importance
to the public health, and that in the existing state