Public Health (London) Act, 1891.

BY-LAWS BY THE LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL, UNDER SECTIONS 16 AND 39.

It has occurred to me that a Note calling attention to these by-laws, and some questions arising upon the same, followed by a copy in extenso of the by-laws themselves, would be of considerable service to many of the Town Members of our Institution.*

Though these by-laws were allowed by the Local Government Board as far back as 28th June this year, and came into operation forthwith, I find that very few surveyors or builders are aware of their existence, nor did our PRESIDENT in his Address from the Chair take occasion to refer to them. A correspondent in the Builder, a few weeks ago, called attention to the fact that they were little known, and also that they were of special interest as being the first instalment towards a uniform set of regulations for the whole of London, which, from many points of view (certainly from my own), would, with advantage, supersede the present regulations, varying as they do with each sanitary or building authority in London, and necessitating special study on the part of a surveyor undertaking work in a district new to him.

I have said that, from many points of view, such uniformity is desirable; I understand, however, that these by-laws are objected to by the sanitary authorities representing poorer districts, on the ground that the standard set is too high, and that while it is reasonable, in a well-to-do district, to insist on, say, brass thimbles and caulked lead joints to iron soil-pipes of heavy substance, it

For the convenience of Members, the new By-Laws referred to are printed in extenso, pages 303-315.

P

becomes somewhat oppressive in the case of inferior property.

Of course there is a reply to this objection, which I will not stop to consider; but I will simply say that, in my judgment, it is a mistake to set a standard too high, because the more costly the improving of sanitary arrangements is made, the less disposed will the owners of property be to incur that expense voluntarily.

Section 16 of the Act sets forth the subjects on which the various sanitary authorities enumerated in Section 99 are to make by-laws for the prevention of certain nuisances, and enacts that the London County Council shall make by-laws for prescribing the times for the removal or carriage by road or water of fæcal or offensive matter or liquid in or through London, &c.; and as to the closing and filling up of cesspools and privies; and the duties of the occupier of premises with regard to house refuse, so as to facilitate the removal of it by the sanitary authority.

Every sanitary authority shall observe and enforce such by-laws.

The by-laws made, so far as the London County Council are concerned, under this section, sufficiently speak for themselves. (See page 303.)

The by-laws under Section 39 require careful study. The section of the Act itself reads thus:

"The County Council" (i.e., the London C. C.) "shall "make by-laws with respect to water-closets, earth-closets, privies, ashpits, cesspools, and receptacles for dung, and the "proper accessories thereof in connexion with buildings, "whether constructed before or after the passing of this Act." (The italics are mine, and I call special attention to them.)

"Every sanitary authority shall make by-laws with respect to the keeping of water-closets supplied with

"sufficient water for their effective action" (no doubt in view of difficulty anticipated in framing a general by-law consistent with the powers of the various water companies).

"It shall be the duty of every sanitary authority to "observe and enforce the by-laws under this section, and "any directions given by the sanitary authority under this "Act shall be in accordance with the said by-laws, and so "far as they are not so in accordance shall be void."

The City of London is specially exempted from the operation of these by-laws by Section 133.

I will not attempt to go through the whole of the bylaws seriatim, but have jotted down a few notes upon some of them.

By-law 1. It will be noted that the external wall or walls of the closet are to abut upon the street, or upon a yard, or garden, or open space of not less than 100 square feet of superficial area, measured below floor level. There is an exemption or modified requirement in favour of closets in basements, but this does not apply on the ground floor, and it will not seldom be difficult, if not impossible, to construct a w.c. on the ground floor, where it is often most wanted, because of this regulation. I know already of an instance in point.

By-law 2. This is calculated to cause difficulty, because a top light and ventilation will not meet the requirement. A case in point is before me at this moment. In a new building, situated in a mews, the water-closet is placed on the upper floor at the back. Owing to the class of occupiers, and to the fact that the buildings looking on to the back of these stables are buildings of a superior character, we desired to prohibit any opening in the back wall for light, providing instead a lantern light with vertical opening lights to serve both for light and ventilation. If this regulation is strictly enforced, a restriction, reasonable in itself under the

circumstances, cannot be insisted on to the disadvantage of adjoining tenants and with no advantage on sanitary grounds.

By-law 3 deals with flushing cisterns to w.c.'s which are required to be of "adequate " capacity for the purposes of flushing. No content is specified; but if the L.C.C. can enforce their contention that three gallons, and not two, is the needful quantity, then, until the present water companies' regulations are amended, the "person" will be in a strait betwixt two. This by-law will tend to do away with closets of the "washout," form which, so far as my experience goes, no flush will effectually cleanse, and it is, perhaps, not beyond question whether the "valve" closet will not infringe the clause against "container or other similar fitting."

It will be noticed that the anti-syphonage pipe is required in all cases where two closets are on the same soil pipe. This, in certain cases, seems to me unreasonable and unnecessary to be insisted on.

By-law 4, dealing with soil-pipes, requires that all soilpipes to new buildings must be external. Many Members will remember the late Mr. RYDE's experience of external soil-pipes, and his views thereon.

In the case of refitting a soil-pipe in connection with a building already existing, if impracticable to be fitted outside, it may be inside, and it is curious to see that the by-laws, so stringent in other respects, allow a cast-iron internal soil-pipe.

The regulation that the vent-pipe should in all cases be above the highest part of the roof of the building to which it is attached is unreasonable. It will result, in numberless instances, in vent-pipes being bent along the slope of roofs, thus greatly impairing their efficiency.

It would be interesting to know whether the horizontal distance of twenty feet from an open end of a soil-pipe to a window has been determined after experiment.

The provision as to wire-guard covering, to vent-pipe ends seems to preclude patent cowls, and, so far as I can judge, this is not to be regretted.

It is desirable, perhaps, to call special attention to the fact that By-laws 5, 15, 25, and 27 apply to existing waterclosets, earth-closets, privies, ashpits, cesspools, and receptacles for dung, and the accessories thereof; also that By-law 14 requires that a previous notice in writing shall be sent to the Clerk of the Sanitary Authority by every person who shall intend to construct any water-closet, earth-closet, or privy, or to fit or fix in or in connection with any water-closet, earthcloset, or privy, any apparatus, trap, or soil-pipe.

The above notes will suffice to show that these by-laws require to be carefully studied, and a perusal of the copy appended* will make it evident that the London County Council have availed themselves to the full of the powers given by Section 39.

It only remains to say a few words upon the practical application of these by-laws. How far can they, and how far are they likely to, be enforced? These are mainly lawyers' questions, and I only, therefore, tentatively suggest four points upon which it may, hereafter, be found that objections may be based.

1. That the by-laws were not made in time.

Section 142, sub-section 3, provides that the first bylaws made by the County Council or Sanitary Authority shall be submitted to the Local Government Board not later than 6 months after the commencement of the Act, therefore not later than the 1st day of July, 1892. The by-laws in question were not sealed by the L.C.C. until nearly a year after that date, and I do not remember noticing any extension of the period during which such by-laws were to be made, and should be glad of any information on the point. *See pages 303-315.