View report page

139
I may add that the Board have not been able to deal satisfactorily with these places under
sections 99 and 100 of the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, the magistrate having declined
to make an order under those sections in a case taken before him. Moreover in most cases
the freehold of the site is not vested in the owner (within the meaning of the Act) of the
adjoining property, and there are generally a great many owners having property abutting on
the places which are in the worst condition.
I shall be glad to learn that your Vestry concur in the views of this Board in the matter,
so that I may answer the question of the London County Council in their letter of the 30th
November to that effect.
I am, dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
HENRY GEORGE HILLS,
Clerk.
To the Vestry Clerk,
Rotherhithe.
[Copy.]
THE BOARD OF WORKS FOR THE WANDSWORTH DISTRICT.
East Hill, Wandsworth, S.W.,
18th July, 1895.
Sir,
I am directed by this Board to inform you that they have experienced great difficulty in
securing the cleanliness and proper sanitary condition of mews, yards and similar private
places in this District. It frequently happens that a row of houses has in the rear a yard or
passage which is used as an approach in common by the occupiers of all the houses. These
yards or passages are usually very imperfectly paved and drained. To some of the persons
for whose use they are intended, they are of great use, whilst others, who have a right to use
them, only exercise their right to a slight extent. The consequence is that the latter class of
persons are aggrieved if required to abate a nuisance, which, though existing opposite to their
premises, has really been caused by their neighbours. If the houses are used as shops the
passage is generally in a more or less insanitary state, especially when staples arc built
abutting on it.
In cases where such a passage or place forms a mews it could no doubt be dealt with by
being paved as a new street under section 105 of the Act of 1855, but that would be taking
over the liability for its future cleansing, maintenance, and lighting, and the Board do not
consider that this ought to be a charge upon the rates.