London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Hackney 1961
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Hackney]
This page requires JavaScript
67
SECTION 30 (Duty to notify occupiers of offences). Pursuant to the provisions
of this section written notice of contraventions of Sections 1, 11 and 16 were
sent to occupiers of the 21 premises concerned.
The following table summarises the work of the department in connection with the implementation of the Clean Air Act:-
| Number of complaints received | 150 |
| Number of observations and investigations made | 378 |
| Number of contraventions of Section 1 (Dark Smoke) found | 5 |
| Number of contraventions of Section 11 (Smoke Control Areas) | 2 |
| Number of smoke nuisances (Section 16) | 14 |
| Number of notifications to occupiers of offences (Section 30) | 21 |
| Number of formal notices (Section 16) served | 2 |
| Number of visits in connection with industrial boilers and furnaces | 314 |
| Number of improvements effected to industrial fuel burning equipment | 13 |
| Number of notifications of intention to install new furnaces (Section 3(1)) | 13 |
| Number of applications for approval of new furnaces in accordance with Section 3(2) | 3 |
| Number of visits in connection with domestic Stooke Control | 12, 721 |
| Number of informal notices to owners of properties in Smoke Control Areas | 6,517 |
| Number of formal notices served (Section 12) | 4,835 |
PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) ACT, 1936
SECTION 137 (Nui sances arising from offensive trades) The Public Health
Committee authorised the institution of legal proceedings under this section
in respect of the nuisances arising from-
(a) cellulose spraying causing effluvia at garage premises,
(b) effluvia arising from the burning of oil, cellulose and grease at a
car breaker's yard,
(c) effluvia arising from the manufacture of dolls
(d) effluvia arising from the spraying of furniture with a plastic polish.
The first three of these nuisances were abated without recourse to legal
proceedings. In the fourth case a summons was issued. The Magistrates
visited the factory premises and observed the spraying process. At the
resumed hearing and after evidence for the defence, the Magistrates found that
a nuisance had been proved to exist on the date of the last inspection of the
premises prior to the hearing. In view of the fact that the defendants had
"taken the best practicable means of abating the nuisance" since that date, no
fine was imposed.