View report page

Tin; mum 22 2SS S£rS2»S
s»4*;=sns»iKflB~
KING JOHN S COURT SC11 KMK
In Octobcr, 1893, a letter wu rcccivcd from ^Clcrk 'rf
the london County Council, stating th.it the I ublicHealth
Committee would be glad t- discu» ^ 5
John's Court Area with ie|MMUUUII*M Of the Bo»rd. .. >.1 a
Deputation accordingly attended and it » ,
amended plans should be submittal to the Council and tfetftM
matter should then be again discussed. I prepared M* plans
as suggested and the s.nne having been approved by the MM
were forwarded to the Council with M intimation tW
Hoard would be prepared to carry out the Scheme in MOmMi
therewith, if the Council would agree to coninbutc one full toe
cost and to lend the Hoard the other half, the estimated COSt
being £13,492 after allowing for rec upi
fm A % atio\m V l(on s kw i! l« *».
In the month of July, in conscquenCC of OOnpUMl Oi
emanations from the sewers on the Cotton I .-state at Limeh«»u «.
1 had openings made in various parts ami examined the >ew«
and found them to be clear and free from dep< »sit, except in so:
few Cases near the flushing .which were tin* d< iuK ol
the sewers. I thereupon reported to the Board that in my
opinion the bad smells arose from the Main Low Level Outfall
Scwcr into which the sewers discharged throu -h tlu St. Paul's
o r>
Road sewer. The Works Committee requested me to call the
attention of the London County Council to the matter, with a
view to their providing effluvia flaps at the junctions, a course
which in my opinion would to a very grt at « xtent remedy the
evil complained of.
Complaint having been made of nuisance can led by noxious
effluvia proceeding from manholes to sewers under the control
of the Board, I caused the same to be temporarily stopped Up,
in the hope that if the County Council carried OUt the workB I
had suggested the cause of complaint would be removed.