View report page

68
that more prompt compliance with the Council's requirements
might reasonably be expected.
Generally, legal proceedings were taken for abatement orders
and non-compliance with Magistrates' Orders, but two cases might
be mentioned as being of particular interest.
The first case referred to nuisances from noise and fumes emanating
from a factory. Complaints were received from several
ratepayers living in the area affected, and justification for these
complaints was established by the inspector making nightly visits
over a period to houses in the vicinity of the factory concerned.
It was felt that although the cost of abating these nuisances would
be fairly heavy, some effort should be made to mitigate the annoyance
suffered by the people living in the neighbourhood. The
hearing of these summonses was somewhat protracted and involved
several appearances in Court by the Council's solicitor and inspector,
but ultimately, the necessary work was carried out and the summonses
were withdrawn on payment of light costs.
In the other case, the summons was taken out to establish the
sanitary inspector's right of entry to premises for the purpose of
ascertaining whether any nuisance existed, and without first
obtaining a Justice's warrant. In this case, the inspector had made
several visits to the house and had been refused access, but it might,
nevertheless, have been difficult for the purpose of securing the
necessary warrant to satisfy a Justice, either that a nuisance existed
or that there were reasonable grounds for believing that a nuisance
existed. The summons was, therefore, taken out for obstructing
the inspector by refusing him entry to the premises for the purpose
of ascertaining whether any nuisance to which the Fifth Schedule
of the Public Health Act applies, existed therein, and was heard at
North London Magistrates' Court on the 2nd December, 1949, when
the defendant was fined £1 and ordered to pay £1 1s. 0d. costs.