DUST NUISANCE AT RICHMOND

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26659, 19 February 1952, Page 6

DUST NUISANCE AT RICHMOND

,» SACK-CLEANING BUSINESS NOTICE SERVED ON FIRM Dust nuisance from a sack-cleaning business in Stanmore road, and the erection of a building by the firm without a permit, have involved the City Council in negotiations lasting more than four years. In a report summarising the negotiations, which was received by the council at its meeting last evening, the housing and town planning committee said that the firm had so far failed to replace the temporary building erected under bond for two years in 1948 or to take quate steps to abate the dust nuisance. The report stated that the building was erected without a permit in 1948, but after negotiations it was allowed to remain under a bond which required that it saould be replaced by a building of fire-resisting materials within two years from July, 1948. The first inquiry by the firm for approval for rebuilding was in January last year. Later inquiries and site plans were submittecrin June. No rebuilding had yet started and the firm was still operating in the temporary building. A letter of complaint about the dust nuisance signed by six nearby residents was received by the council at the end of 1948. In December, 1948, a nuisance was deemed to exist and a notice to discontinue business was served on the firm. A nuisance was still deemed to exist in March last year but the firm advised that it was waiting for a new dust extracting machine. In May last year it was stated that the new machinery would be . delivered within two weeks but delivery was delayed. Last month it was ascertained that the new machinery had been delivered but had never been installed. The council adopted the committee’# recommendation that a notice be served on the firm to comply with the °f the bond within three months. A riotice will also be served S 1 flrm under Section 26 of the Health Act calling on It to abate the dust nuisance. Smoke from Gas Works “I wish they would take the same steps with the gas works,” said Cr. M. B. Howard, M.P. The dust nuisance to the residents of Richmond was just as serious as the smoke nuisanca caused by the gas works. “We have done it with this flrm, why cannot we do it with the gas works, or are we afraid of the big gas company?” asked Cr, Howard. . E ■Die Mayor (Mr R. M. Macfarlane, M.P.) said it would be a better procedure if the residents took action against the company. The resident# would be in a position to get an injunction against the company white the coupcil would have to proceed under Section 26 of the Health Act, calling on it to abate the nuisance. Smoke and dust nuisance had been considered by the finance and bylaws committee recently and several factories had been persuaded to vary their plant in an endeavour to reduce smoke nuisance, said Cr. T. H. Me- ' Combs. The gas company was unfortunately unable to vary its plant. ’The gas company has done wnat it can to reduce the smoke nuisance but it is still bad,” said Mr McCombs. “In fairness to the gas company, I would say that a great deal of the smoke nuisance is not its responsibility but that of the Railways Department.” he said. He did not wish to'exonerate the gas works or the railways, which were both at fault.