Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for St James's, Westminster]
This page requires JavaScript
118
the City of London Fire Inquests Act, 1888, and that the other
Vestries and District Boards in the Metropolis be invited to
support this representation to the County Council.
7. Your Committee observe that the communication from the Metropolitan
Board of Works contains no reference to the suggested
amendment of the Metropolitan Building Acts. They accordingly
recommend that the attention of the London County Council
should be directed to the importance of this subject, with a view
to amending legislation being brought forward at the earliest
opportunity. The amendments should be especially directed to
the following points:—
(a) Securing the official inspection and approval by some Public
Authority, such as the London County Council, of the
plans of all new buildings before the erection of the
buildings is commenced, with a view especially to the
prevention of fire.
(b) More strictly limiting the area, or floor space, of any room
used for manufacturing or business purposes, or providing
for a complete subdivision of large rooms during closing
hours, so that should an outbreak of fire occur it might
be restricted to very narrow limits and thus the more
easily dealt with.
(c) Providing some efficient means of escape from every floor
upon which there are rooms used for dwelling purposes.
(d) Proprietors of all large buildings, especially where there
are a number of persons living on the premises (including
Artizans' Dwellings) to be further subject (as suggested
by the Vestry of Newington), to a requirement to provide
all needful appliances for escape in case of fire, adapted
to the particular circumstances of the case, and kept
under due inspection.
And your Committee report accordingly.
With reference to paragraph 5 of the foregoing Report, a
reply was received from the agent of Sir R. F. Sutton,
stating that Sir Richard regretted to be obliged to object to
the removal or alteration of the posts in Vigo Street, as
suggested, as lessees upon the Sutton Estates as well as
other residents in the vicinity had requested him not to