[Report 1971] / Medical Officer of Health, Godstone R.D.C.

  • Godstone (Surrey, England). Rural District Council.
Date:
1971
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: [Report 1971] / Medical Officer of Health, Godstone R.D.C. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    16/36 (page 12)
    -12- Sewerage & Sewage Disposal Seven main sewage disposal works serve the large centres of population of the rural district. Apart from the Oxted and Nutfield disposal works those at Burstow, Felbridge, Godstone, South Godstone and Lingfield are all of modern design and have additional capacities to cater for future development. In addition to the main works there are six small treatment plants and twelve pumping units throughout the area. Sewerage from the Tatsfield area drains into the West Kent Drainage Board sewers for final disposal at Dartford. Parts of the Chelsham and Farleigh Parishes are drained into sewers of the London Borough of Croydon. The Felbridge works receives sewerage from a large area of East Grinstead as well as that from the majority of the houses in Felbridge Village. The Eden Vale works is owned by the East Grinstead TJ.D.C. although sited in the Godstone Rural District; this treatment works deals with the sewered part of the Baldwins Hill area and has recently under- gone complete reconstruction and modernisation. The plans to enlarge and rebuild the Oxted treatment works are being prepared and the elimination of the outmoded Nutfield sewage disposal works by the construction of a pumping station in conjunction with the new Burstow treatment works commenced in 1971, and the construction of sewers in the Rookery Hill and Daiseys Hill area commenced in the autumn. The work on the provision of a larger sewer in the Lingfield Stage II project was also completed during the year. This sewer will accommodate drainage from Dormans Park and the Felcourt area, and eliminate surcharging in the sewer in the Dormans- land and Station Road, Lingfield areas. A small scheme in the Nutfield Marsh area was commissioned during the year. The Council has a formidable programme for new main drainage schemes. Several small extensions received approval during the year and were added to the programme. A scheme to eliminate cesspools in the Farleigh area was given high priority in! order to overcome a serious drainage problem in an area forming part of the gathering ground for the Addington Well in Croydon. It is regrettable that main drainage in a rural area is regarded as a luxury because of the high cost of civil engineering work. One fact which must be borne in mind is that all the relatively easy schemes were constructed when labour was cheaper and the more costly and complicated extensions have been left. The Council operates a request service for cesspool cleansing and charges at the rate of 90p per load of 750 gallons are made to domestic premises. Commercial premises are subject to a charge of £1.80 per load and where the public sewer is available to domestic premises the charge is £1.80 also. These charges were revised after 1st April 1972 to £1 and £2 respectively. The demand for the cesspool cleans- ing service increases year by year in spite of the elimination of many cesspools as a result of new main drainage schemes. Several factors appear to have a bearing on this increase, the Building Regulation stipulation of a minimum capacity for cess- pools at 4,000 gallons, the need to provide new and to improve old houses where main drainage is not available and the present public awareness of the need to prevent pollution of rivers and streams. The Cesspool Cleansing Service is now controlled by the Engineer & Surveyor's Depart- ment with the Sewage Works Manager in charge of the day to day administration and supervision of the disposal of the contents from the tankers which for most of the time use the Council's sewage disposal works. At most disposal works tanks have been installed for reception of the cesspool sewage. These tanks have sufficient capacity to allow this type of sewage, which is about ten times stronger than normal sewage, to be fed into the treatment process at a rate which will enable the correction dilution to take place. It is regrettable that cesspools are still paving to be accepted as an alternative to main drainage. River Authorities are now reluctant to agree to small treatment plants which have to be registered when the final effluent has to be discharged into a water- course and the cesspool is the only alternative when the subsoil has insufficient porosity for a septic tank and land irrigation system to function satisfactorily. In my opinion, where there is a main water supply there should be main drainage; to continue the building of cesspools will perpetuate pollution problems.