Example sentences of "public health act " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Subjects covered include : assistance for privately let housing ; disposal of land ; assistance to voluntary organisations under Section 65 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968 ; transfer of staff of homes ; local authority capital finance ; promotion of bodies to acquire homes ; controls on local authority companies ; compulsory competitive tendering ; and restrictive trade practices . |
| 2 | IF a dwelling house is in such a state of disrepair as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance , the tenant may lay an information against his landlord alleging the existence of a statutory nuisance under the Public Health Act 1936 . |
| 3 | In September 1988 Mrs Bujok laid an information against the council alleging the existence and continuance of a statutory nuisance under section 92(1) of the Public Health Act 1936 . |
| 4 | It pointed to the 1936 Public Health Act which gave powers to local authorities , although these were patently ineffective . |
| 5 | And remember , in accordance with the Public Health Act 1936 , amended in 1961 , it is the duty of every water authority to ensure that all supplies are clean , clear , inodorous , wholesome and palatable ! |
| 6 | These chartered towns did not cover the whole of the urban areas of the country and in the year 1848 the Public Health Act created Local Boards of Health . |
| 7 | The Public Health Act of 1875 which may be regarded as a landmark in the advancement of local administration , gave to these Boards a code of powers in relation to public health and other matters , and established urban and rural sanitary authorities . |
| 8 | Complaint may be made to the local authority environmental health department whose responsibility it is under s.91 of the Public Health Act 1936 to inspect their areas for the detection of nuisance and institute formal proceedings either summarily or in the High Court , where , in their opinion , the odour complained of amounts to a statutory nuisance within s.92 of that Act . |
| 9 | Should the local authority refuse to initiate formal proceedings for some reason , perhaps because they are of the opinion that the odour does not amount to a statutory nuisance or they themselves are causing the offending odour , then an individual complainant may himself take summary action under s.99 of the Public Health Act 1936 , ( see Chapter 3 ) but may not bring proceedings in the High Court . |
| 10 | The non-availability of this defence at common law is one of the reasons why local authorities , having decided to take action in the High Court , in order to secure an injunction requiring the cessation of the odour , often prefer to bring an action in respect of a public nuisance rather than rely on s.100 of the Public Health Act 1936 where it is uncertain whether or not the defence of best practicable means is available . |
| 11 | It was decided in that case that a court of summary jurisdiction had no power under sections 91 to 96 of the Public Health Act 1875 ( now replaced by ss.92–99 of the Public Health Act 1936 ) , on proof of a nuisance from a sewage disposal works , constructed under that Act , to make an order for its abatement . |
| 12 | It was decided in that case that a court of summary jurisdiction had no power under sections 91 to 96 of the Public Health Act 1875 ( now replaced by ss.92–99 of the Public Health Act 1936 ) , on proof of a nuisance from a sewage disposal works , constructed under that Act , to make an order for its abatement . |
| 13 | Firstly , on the narrow ground that the word ‘ premises ’ in s.91 of the 1875 Act ( now replaced by s.92 of the Public Health Act 1936 ) does not include sewage disposal works . |
| 14 | What was needed was a simpler more speedy procedure and so Parliament intervened with the first Public Health Act in 1848 , the forerunner of modern public health legislation . |
| 15 | The present day Public Health Act 1936 and the Public Health ( Recurring Nuisances ) Act 1969 give local authorities acting through their environmental health officers , and in certain circumstances an individual , limited powers to control odour emissions which amount to a statutory nuisance , as defined by s.92(1) of the 1936 Act , reproduced below : |
| 16 | The assessment of whether an odour problem amounts to a statutory nuisance within s.92 of the Public Health Act 1936 is a most difficult decision and then to justify that decision before a court equally so . |
| 17 | an old case on the offensive trades provisions of the Public Health Act 1875 . |
| 18 | This said Lord Widgery , ‘ Is entirely consistent with the provisional view I have formed of the extent of this section within the ambit of the Public Health Act . |
| 19 | To be prejudicial to health within the meaning of s.343 of the Public Health Act 1936 , an odour must be injurious or likely to cause injury to health . |
| 20 | In N.C.B. v Thorne it was held that the word ‘ nuisance ’ in s.92(1) ( a ) of the Public Health Act 1936 must mean either a public or private nuisance as understood at common law . |
| 21 | A local authority , once satisfied that an odour amounts to a statutory nuisance is under a duty to serve an abatement notice in accordance with s.93 of the Public Health Act 1936 on the person whose act , default or sufferance gave rise to the nuisance or caused it to continue , requiring that person , in a specified time , usually two to six months , to abate the nuisance and to execute such remedial works and take such steps as may be necessary for that purpose . |
| 22 | Section 290(2) of the Public Health Act 1936 states that any notice requiring remedial works to be carried out must indicate their nature and also specify the time limit in which they must be done . |
| 23 | This eventuality is provided for in s.97 of the Public Health Act 1936 , and proceedings may be instituted against any one , or all of the odour emitters providing sufficient evidence can be obtained to satisfy the court that a particular works is in fact contributing to the statutory nuisance . |
| 24 | Section 2(1) of the Public Health ( Recurring Nuisances ) Act 1969 imposes a similar but lesser power : where a prohibition notice has not been complied with and the odour nuisance recurs , a local authority may institute summary proceedings , whereupon the Magistrates ' Court hearing the complaint shall have like power to make a nuisance order in the same way as if the local authority had acted under s.93 of the Public Health Act 1936 . |
| 25 | In Saddleworth Urban District Council v Aggregate and Sand Ltd. it was held that lack of finance was not a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a nuisance order under s.94 of the Public Health Act 1936 , in respect of an abatement notice served under s.1 of The Noise Abatement Act 1960 and s.93 of the 1936 Act . |
| 26 | Where the local authority is of the opinion that summary proceedings provide an inadequate remedy , for example , where a fine will have little effect in persuading the odour emitter to abate the odour , or where summary action has failed , or is unacceptable due to the availability of the defence of best practicable means , proceedings may be taken in the High Court under s.100 of the Public Health Act 1936 , even though the local authority has not itself suffered any damage , provided the odour amounts to a statutory nuisance . |
| 27 | Section 100 of the Public Health Act 1936 is silent on the availability of any defence to an action in the High Court , but the words of s.94(4) and s.94(5) clearly refer to summary proceedings , stating that ‘ where proceedings are brought under this section ( that is s.94 ) it shall be a defence that best practicable means were used … |
| 28 | Odour problems often arise in connection with premises used for activities designated ‘ offensive trades ’ , either by s.107(1) ( i ) of the Public Health Act 1936 as extended by Schedule 14 of the Local Government Act 1972 , or by Order made by the local authority and confirmed to be so by the Secretary of State . |
| 29 | Section 107 of the Public Health Act 1936 provides : |
| 30 | On the company 's failure to comply with the notices , informations were laid and summonses issued alleging breaches of s.107 of the Public Health Act 1936 . |