THE SANITATION QUESTION.
CONFERENCE OP LOCAL BODIES. In response to the invitation of Dr Frengley, District Health Officer, the representatives of various local bodie«, assembled at the Borough Council office, Blenheim, on Tuesday, to discuss the question of arranging for the appointment of a sanitary inspector and of inaugurating a thorough system of sanitary inspection throughout Marlborough. Those present were: —Dr Frengley (chairman), Messrs Penny (Blenheim Borough Council), Taylor (Havelock Town Board), Storey (Pelorus Road Boardl, Neville (Awatereßoad Board!, Bell (Omaka Road Board), and Chaytor (Picton Road Board). The chairman briefly outlined the proposed scheme, which provided for the appointment of an .inspector at a salary of £l9O per annum. This officer would, in Blenheim and Picton, act as inspector of buildings, nuisances, plumbing connections, etc., and in other parts of the district he would make periodical visits of inspection, have insanitary matters rectified, and report to the Public Health Department. In reply to questions, Dr Frengley said that the inspector would be appointed by the Department, would act without reference to the local bodies, and would investigate all cases of infectious diseases. The Department would pay travelling expenses of the inspector up to an amount that would bring hi t salary to £250., The allocation of the inspector’s salary was suggested as follows :
Blenheim Borough Council . • 80 Picton Borough Council .. .. 25 Havelock Town Board . . .. 10 Omaka Road Board . . .. 15 Pelorus Road Board, .. 15 Picton Road Board .. .. 10 Awatere Road Board .. .. 15 Spring Creek Road Board.. .. 10 Wairau Road Board .. ..10 This schedule, continued the chairman, had been arranged on a basis of population with regard to density. Mr Neville said he did not think the inspector would ever be seen in the Awatere, which district was being charged too much in proportion to its need for his services. The chairman pointed out that on a , basis of population the people in the Awatere would pay 2fd per annum per bead. Mr Bell considered the Government should appoint an officer and pay him. He was, however, in favour of giving the scheme a trial provided the inspection was efficient—he particularly emphasised the need for effiiciency. Mr Taylor said that what had deterred his Board having anything to do with a similar scheme suggested a few years ago was the fact that the inspector was to visit the town, ascertain possible sanitary defects, and report to the Board. This was no use to the Board, who required an official who would act without expecting them to direct him. The Town Board’s share was too high in proportion to, the revenue. Mr Ohaytor said he was willing to give the scheme a trial, and Mr Penny said the Blenheim Borough Council had decided to participate to the extent of £BO pec annum. Mr McCormick thought that as the local bodies were to pay the salary they should know something of the qualifications of the inspector; at present they knew nothing. He thought £25 was a reasonable proportion for Picton, but could not say whether it would be agreed to. Mr Storey admitted that personally he was “dead against” the scheme, and would not pledge his Board in any way. His Board’s proportion was too high, for the district was only sparsely settled—it extended over 60 miles of country, yet there were only 1400 people in it. After further discussion the Town Board’s share was reduced to £7, the Pelorus Road Board’s to £ll, and the Awatere Road Board’s to £l2, bringing the salary to £IBO, and the following non-committal propositions, sug« gested by the chairman, were then carried:— 1. That the delegates here present are in favour of an efficient system of sanitary inspection; 2. That the said inspector be appointed and controlled by the Departi raent of Public Health ; 3. That a copy of the suggested apportionment, together with a schedule of the inspector’s duties, be submitted by the District Health Officer to the various local bodies.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PGAMA19090827.2.23
Bibliographic details
Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 20, Issue 68, 27 August 1909, Page 4
Word Count
656THE SANITATION QUESTION. Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 20, Issue 68, 27 August 1909, Page 4
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.