IMMINENT THREAT OF POISONING - A Heron seen here with Mallard Ducks on the pond in Lime Park on the 27th of September 2020. It is proposed by Latimer Developments Limited, to pass surface water drainage through this pond, despite the detrimental effect that bio accumulative poisoning is sure to have from pesticides used on the gardens of the 70 houses they intend building.

In 1997 suspected planning crime was reported to Sussex police, following a petition to Wealden District Council. There were 12 separate complaints from unrelated complainants, but this police force failed to investigate any of the reported crimes. Now some 23 years later, suspect planning consents are still flowing. It is alleged that this is one case where the planning officers have turned a blind eye to their duty to protect these birds - and of course the fish and flora of Lime Park. One thing is for sure, Sussex police are unlikely to investigate any matter concerning any Wealden planning officer, let alone tangle with the likes of the developers, or any person doing a deal with the developers. Even if fraud or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or indeed to kill these birds is involved. Killing a bird by poisoning is an imprisonable offence.

Natural England may come to mind when thinking of habitat and species protection, but do not be fooled. They have limited interests, not so much genuinely concerned to protect birds, fish and insects, but more to concentrate on Sites of Special Scientific Interest, SSSIs.

This is an important task, but think again if you want help with a local problem such as a pond/lake under imminent threat.

In the UK we have no article 13, right to an effective remedy - that is why in the Human Rights Act 1998, they left out Article 1 and Article 13. This is important, because it means that Legal Aid is not available to give the ordinary man a right to a day in Court with advocacy to level the playing field. The reasons why England deprived the ordinary person of his/her human right to justice, is because the system is corrupt - and in the provision of the RIGHT to an effective remedy, the system would be shown to be defective, including the honours system and courts, where knighthoods and other awards, and Masonic influences where the CPS and Court Service is riddled with built in conflicts of interest. Meaning, that the State would only have to ensure a particular Judge or Inspector was selected to try/hear a case, to be able to steer the outcome.

All of that is contrary to Rex v Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy 1924. Justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, by removing any potentially influencing elements. I.e. an authority cannot be judge and jury on their own cause.

It might be then that the United Kingdom violates the European Convention, and/or the Universal Declaration, despite H M Queen Elizabeth having driven an ambulance in World War Two and the UK having helped to draft such lofty ideals.

WATER NEUTRALITY & NATURAL ENGLAND

WHAT IS WATER NEUTRALITY? 

The definition of water neutrality in Natural England’s Statement is taken from that used in the final report of Water Neutrality Study: Part A – Individual Local Authority Areas;

“For every new development, total water use in the region after the development must be equal to or less than the total water-use in the region before the new development.”

HOW IS WATER NEUTRALITY ACHIEVED?

Water neutrality is achieved through a combination of water efficiency measures for new developments to reduce the water use per person (called per capita consumption).

The amount of water from new homes, offices and other developments that use public water supply in the Sussex North water supply zone is then calculated on an individual or cumulative basis to produce a predicted “demand” for water from growth.

This total amount of water from growth is then offset by reducing the amount of water currently used in the Sussex North water supply zone.

MEASURES THAT COULD BE APPLIED INCLUDE:

• household and non-household visits (also called water audits) to provide advice on the wise use of water, and to fit water saving devices

• expansion of Southern Water’s leakage reduction programme above their business plan

• extension to the metering programme followed by adoption of smart meters at a faster rate than required in the existing water company business plan

• adoption of rainwater harvesting or grey water recycling in new builds and retrofitting them in existing housing

• where practical, adoption of a largescale rainwater harvesting scheme to remove demand from toilet flushing in a large business park

Southern Water already have an ambitious programme of water efficiency measures as part of their Target 100 activities.

This limits the options that the Local Authorities have to independently achieve neutrality as any measure to achieve neutrality must be in addition to measures already planned.

Further discussion is recommended with Southern Water to understand the extent of the Target 100 programme, what contribution could be made to neutrality from measures it contains, and whether there is an opportunity to go faster or further than the Southern Water’s plan.

The analysis in this report shows that a package of measures is likely to be required in order to achieve neutrality, with no one measure likely to offset the total demand. Global warming is likely to increase the risk of water shortages, according to a report from the Climate Change Committee.

HOW LONG WILL WATER NEUTRALITY BE REQUIRED?

It is likely that achieving water neutrality will be important for as long as the adverse effect risk from water supply abstraction continues. This may well remain the case until the Habitats Sites in question are restored to favourable conservation status. Though there is an investigation to try to resolve the uncertainties this is not thought likely to remove the adverse effect risk with certainty. 

It should be possible to phase out the requirement for water neutrality once a sustainable long-term water supply has been secured for the region, and this is close enough to being delivered that the commencement of use of any development being assessed is not likely to occur before delivery of this supply.

WHERE DOES THE NATURAL ENGLAND STATEMENT APPLY?

At present the Natural England Statement applies to development that requires a public water supply from Southern Water’s Sussex North water supply zone. That said, the general principle could be applied to any proposed development site, that feed from or to sites where habitats are at potentially risk. Especially so as our climate continues to warm up.

In the South East of England, Southern Water and South East Water are the corporations responsible for providing fresh drinking water, drainage and waste treatments, all of which services are (or should be) designed to conserve our natural heritage and environment.

CONTACTS

Southern Water Services Ltd
Southern House
Yeoman Road
Worthing
West Sussex
BN13 3NX
Company No. 02366670

Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC):
36000 - Water collection, treatment and supply
37000 - Sewerage
71200 - Technical testing and analysis

South East Water Limited
Rocfort Road
Snodland
Kent
ME6 5AH
Company No. 02679874

Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC):
36000 - Water collection, treatment and supply

SEPTEMBER 17 2020 - Shit handling pipes, installation at Shit Creek, Herstmonceux, the field adjacent is to be built on with 70 houses flushing excrement down a network of pipes that could spring leaks at any time. But, of even more concern is the pollution from the surface run off of pesticides from 70 gardens and garages, through Lime Pond. In that Southern Water are providing the infrastructure to make that pollution a reality, they may be held to be vicariously liable or part of a conspiracy to kill wild animals. If any of the soil pipes from the proposed houses were to leak into the pond and kill any animal, they would be criminally liable for sure.

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/appropriate-assessment

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1012/contents/made

https://www.wealden.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/planning-policy-evidence-base/habitat-regulations-assessment/

COUNTRYSIDE ABOMINATION & HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS - If you buy one of these (proposed) houses, not only will you be adding to global warming, but you could be letting yourself in for many years of litigation, not least of which is the potential to be charged under groundwater contamination laws. At least 40% of the houses shown are in a direct line to poison the only working well in the village - Lime Well - in the lower left of the picture. The developers will also fall foul of the Human Rights Act 1998, for interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of a water supply.