ERECTION OF A DESTRUCTOR.
DISCUSSION AT THE CITY COUNCIL
A DESTRUCTOR TO BE ORDERED AT ONCE.
At the meeting of the Christchurch City Council last evening, the Sanitary Committee, in its report, stated that as the cost of erecting a temporary destructor would exceed the Council's estimate, it had deoided to leave the acceptance of the tender to the Council.
The Special Committee appointed in con-, nection with the erection of a destructor reported that, with .the assistance ci the Sanitary Committee, it had considered the question of providing a destructor for destroying the dust and rubbish in the, city, and had unanimously resolved that it was desirable to procure one at once, and it recommended the Council to order a fcur-cell destructor of Beaman and Deas, from Meldrum Bros., in accordance with their tender. The Mayor moved the adoption of the report-. A great deal had been, said on the subject, but the publio did not know that .the movement for a destructor had originated with the Government Health Officer. The Council was bound to do away with the present nuisance at Shipley, and it had never been in the minds of Councillors to substitute a temporary for a permanent destructor. They had now, he -took it, all the information on the subject. He read a letter from the New York City Council stating that the seven American destructors used in that city were unsatisfactory on account of their consumption of fuel, and the English destructor manufactured by the Beaman and Deas Company was the best in that respect. A tender from that firm was among those received by the Council, and he read extracts showing that no destructor^ was now thought worthy ci the name of a destructor wliicli was not worked without absolute immunity from noxious fumes and gases. The suggestion made by him which had been approved by the Heathcote Road Board and referred to "the residents of Bromley for an expression of opinion, was" substantially that the Cliristchurch City Council should be permitted to use Reserve No. 212 at Bromley for a term of nine months for the purpose of burying the rubbish from the city, the rubbish to be buried in such a manner that no nuisance shall arise therefrom. If that suggestion was adopted, the City Council would not proceed with the erection of -the proposed temporary destructor at Bromley, would immediately accept a tender for a permanent destructor to be erected in the city of Christchurch, 1 and, if desired, would satisfy the Heathcote Road Board that such tender had been accepted by it, and it would, at or before the expiration of the nine nionths, cease depositing rubbish within the Heathcote Road District. To avoid the expense,, delay, and possible irritation which, might arise from litigation, and as proof of their desire to work amicably with other local bodies, residents and ratepayers of the district recommended the Heathcote Road Board to agree to the above suggestions as a friendly solution of the present difficulty, provided— (l) That it. was distinctly understood that the arrangementshould be made without prejudice to theyights and powers conferred by the Heathcoate Rtfad. District Sanitation Act, 1899; (2) that all carts or. other conveyances carrying rubbish to the reserve should be properly covered; (3) that the City Council should make such agreement Or undertaking as was approved by the Board's solicitors. It was also suggested that it would be much appreciate'}, if ij> cquld be. arranged, that the rubbish should be conveyed to the reserve not later than 9 a. m. m or before 6 a.m. At the expiration of nine months, if the permanent destructor was not completed, the/ Heathcote Road Board would be recommended to extend "the arrangement- for a further term provided it was satisfied eveiy effort had been made Uy the Council to complete the erection of the destructor. The main features cf the destructor of the Beaman and Detfs Destructor Company, now controlled by Messrs Meldrum Bros., of Manchester, which had baen adopted by the Ohristchurch City Council, were the veiy rapid combustion, due to the novel contraction of the furnace, and the method of applying the air, and the steam blast. > Each cell would destroy froni sixteen to twentyfour toils of unsor ted refuse per day under normal conditions. The heat obtained for steam raising purposes from «ach pair of cells forming,.*. furnace wotild develop 75 to 150 horse-power from the average house refuse, containing ashes, garbage, and every kind of -matter reject ekl from houses, shops, and markets. There was absolute dmmunity.from the nuisance of noxious fume, or gases, the arrangement" of the furnace feeing such that the fumes and smoke from drying refuse must pass ovei- the hottest part of the fires and through the combustion, chamber, thus ensuring their complete destruction. Since the sanitary, work of this destructor was beyond question its establishment was practicable in any part of a city at points where the steam power developed might ba conveniently utilised as an auxiliary,' or as the main, source of power for many municipal or business purposes. In moving the adoption of the report, as cliairman of the committee he represented, he said he hoped the Council would pass his motion.
Councillor Sorensen," in seconding the motion, said that when the scheme" was carried out it would afford the cleanest and neatest method of disposing of tlieir rubbish. The Mayor was deserving of 4he warmest thanks of the Council fcr the manner in which ihe had carried the scheme through. In reply to Councillor Gray the Mayor said ifc was proposed to cable for the destructor at once, and to send the written order through by the next mail. Councillor Gray said he would support the motion.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Permanent link to this item
ERECTION OF A DESTRUCTOR., Star, Issue 6885, 28 August 1900
ERECTION OF A DESTRUCTOR. Star, Issue 6885, 28 August 1900
Using This Item
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries (1910-1920).