[Report 1961] / Medical Officer of Health, Canterbury Borough / City & County.

  • Canterbury (England). City & County Council.
Date:
1961
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1961] / Medical Officer of Health, Canterbury Borough / City & County. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    42/58 (page 36)
    The scheme put into operation in 1948 to prevent the spread of vermin in Council houses was continued, but owing to staff shortage it was not possible to inspect the furniture and effects of prospective tenants. As in the past, each house, whether old or new, is given a precautionary spraying with insecticide before occupation commences and in the year 241 such sprayings were done. The staff carried out 31 fumigations to rid premises of wasps’ nests. Rodent Control. One part-time rodent operator is employed by the Council and the methods used are those recommended by the Infestation Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture. Complaints were received from 253 persons; 241 were in respect of infestation in private houses and 12 were from occupiers of business premises. During the investigation of these complaints 35 additional infestations were discovered. Maintenance treatments of the sewers was carried out in June and it would appear that the number of rats is being kept at a very low level. The operator, who also assists with other public health work, was kept fully occupied and the following is a summary of the rodent work carried out:— Visits to houses ... 1,782 Visits to other premises 84 No. of premises cleared :— Rats Houses 232 Business premises 9 Mice Houses 56 Business premises ... 3 No charge is made for rodent extermination in house property, but a charge for the work done in business premises based on time spent and cost of materials, is made to the occupier. Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Act, 1956. Seven farms were inspected and the sanitary accommodation for employees was found to be reasonably satisfactory. This is the Council’s only duty under the Act and when it is considered that central government staff carry out the other functions, including securing the provision of washing facilities it seems logical that the local authorities’ duty should be transferred to them on the grounds of efficiency and to the convenience of the farmers.