[Report 1913] / Medical Officer of Health, Somerset County Council.

  • Somerset Council
Date:
1913
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1913] / Medical Officer of Health, Somerset County Council. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    37/122 (page 33)
    I>(tlh Rural.—Tliroe sowai^o sclioines wore uialor eonsidc'ration. In May, an Tnqnirv was liold by an Inspcador of tiu' Lcxail (Jovorniiu'nt IJoard in coniK'otion witli tlie loan of iiIfor the pin-poso of eai’rying out a joint seworag(‘ soIumjio for Monkton (V)nibe, Batliford, I>atheaston, Ifathainpton, Swainswiek and (1av(M‘ton. .Vj)pi’oval was given subject to certain amendments of detail winch were attended to and tendei’s liave been invited for constructing the necessary w'orks. The old standing ([uestion of tlie drainage of Fresliford w'as furtlier adyanced but the w'ork has not yet been put in hand. Plans are being })repared for the drainage of Peasedowai but tlie matter has not ad¬ yanced yery far. Bridgwater Rural.—The outfall wnrks for the sewaige of North T^etherton were yery unsatisfactory and during the year tw'o detritus tanks and twai 50ft. percolating filters w'ere constructed. The ^ledical Officer of Health reports that they are working well and giving every satisfaction. Clutton RuraJ.—By the direction of the ('lutton Council plans w^ere prepared for the drainage of Paulton, Timsbury, High Littleton and Farmborough. A combined drainage scheme for these four {larishes wais prepared, the estimated cost being about £25,000. \Try little progress was being made and acting on the direction of the Bublic ttealth (dmmittee I iinpiired into the matter and reported to that committee. The (Vnnmittee ])resented the followdng rejiort to the (Aunty (-V)uncil January Gth, 1914:— ‘‘ The existing conditions inyolve considerable sew^age })ollution of water courses. At Idxulton many of the sewers discharge into an open ditch, wdiich ultimately finds its waxy into the Ctxm brook. At High Tdttleton some of the sewage is discharged into a tank at the bottom of Rotcombe lane. The little brook wdiich receiyes the oyerfiow- from this tank show^s marked evidence of sewaxge contamination. At Farmborough a brook runs along by the road through the greater part of the village and receives a certain amount of sloji water, the drainage from farm premises, etc. At Timsbury ]iart of the sewaage is conducted direct into a fissure in the limestone wdth possible danger to underground w^ater supplies. At Hobbs Wall, a hamlet of Farmborough, the sewaxge from a number of houses dis¬ charges on to a piece of land quite near the houses wdiere it collects in a large stinking pool, wdiich gradually drains awaay. The Clutton Rural District Council have prepared a comprehensive scheme for dealing with these matters, of wdiich the estimated cost is £24,875, involving extra rates of more than 2s. (id. in the £, making a total of more than 1 is. The followdng petitions protesting against the ])roposed sewxige scheme have been laid before us :— (1) —Parochial voters of the parish of Farmborough. (2) —-Ratepayers of High Littleton. (3) —Electors and ratepayers of the parish of Timsbury. (4) —Parishioners of Paulton, siqiporting a resolution to the same effect carried at a parish meeting of the parish of Ikxulton. The Farmborough Parish Council and Parish Meeting have also protested strongly against the adojition of a sewage scheme for the parish of Farmborough. We recommend the County Council to adjourn the matter for three months to enable the Clutton Rural District Council to preiiare a modified scheme to put a stop to the