Safeguarding Health in Rural Areas
Page 51
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I N this paper, by Me. T. Colin. Gough, inspector of cleans
ing of Stirling County Council, he points out that, by rural areas, he means villages and hamlets with a population of 2,000 and under. Any apparent backwardness must not be attributed to failure to recognize the responsibilities, but because a cleansing service, no matter how modest, means a substantial increase in local rates.
There are still many villages unprovided with watercarriage drainage systems, and where the old conservancy systems of sewage disposal are in operation, here -any cleansing service has invariably to deal with the contents of ash-pits, earth closets, etc. To do this efficiently means a fairly costly scheme. Only water-tight carts with tight covers should be employed and the work is best done at night.
The author reluctantly comes to the conclusion that, until smaller villages are provided with proper drainage systems, the tenants and property owners should be left to make their own arrangements for the removal of refuse to a place of disposal provided and controlled by the local authority, for the use of which a charge would be made.
In very rural areas the refuse is 3 cwt. per head per annum, and in industrial villages 4-5 cwt. per head ; in the author's district—a coal-mining one—it averages 6.3 cwt. per head.
Kerbside collection, with all its objections, is much in favour, because of cost, and for the majority of villages two collections per week would be found ample. Any cleansing scheme for a rural area must be modern in conception, efficient in service and economical,