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, but of even more concern is the pollution from the 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. If any of the soil pipes from the proposed houses were to leak into the pond, they would be criminally liable for sure.

The importance of a supply of fresh (potable) drinking water cannot be overstated. Indeed, the world has a water shortage, with some countries not having a distribution system of piped H2O, that we take for granted in Britain. Despite the UK being a relatively well rained on country with many reservoirs and such, we still have water shortages, hosepipe bans and the like.

There are virtually no wells in regular use these days, though boreholes are becoming more popular with a change in the law as to personal use. There are the odd exceptions, one locally being in Herstmonceux named Lime Wells, because there are dual brick sinkings in close proximity. A reliable water supply is a significant asset, sometimes very vulnerable to adjacent development. The wells in Lime Park are vulnerable, should the ground become contaminated with herbicides and hydrocarbons, without suitable protections from the dominant landscape.

In McAdams Homes Ltd v Robinson [2004] EWCA Civ 214, the Court of Appeal ruled that an implied or prescriptive easement cannot continue to be used where the dominant land has changed use (or ownership) or has been developed if the development of the dominant land represent a radical change in its character or a change in its identity and the use of the dominant land, as redeveloped, results in a substantial increase or alteration in the burden on the servient land. As reinforced by Bernel Ltd v Canal and River Trust [2021] EWHC 16 (Ch) 7 April 2021, where a developer was unable on the facts to establish a right to drain onto its neighbour’s land without permission.

So, please leave ours alone : )

In this case, the judge felt that changing the site from one modest dwelling to nine new dwellings was a radical change in the character of the dominant land. However, the flow of surface water and treated foul water in accordance with an approved scheme permitted by the Environment Agency (EA) would not have amounted to a substantial increase in the burden on the servient land.

In the case of the proposed (up to) 70 house development on land at Lime Cross, adjacent to Lime Wells, there is also the matter of groundwater contamination regulations, that was not considered by the courts in the above cases, adding an extra layer of difficulty for developers. Especially where the general rule is that all new developments must be water neutral. Thus, those enjoying water extracted from Lime Wells, must be able to continue to enjoy such rights unfettered - in that it is arguable that to be water neutral, the threat of contamination must be abated in accordance with a permitted scheme approved by the EA. Such scheme to include a long term maintenance plan. Much as required when dealing with nuclear waste.

WE ALL NEED TO DRINK - In some countries there are no groundwater pipes. Water is too valuable. Sometimes more expensive than petroleum. Water tanker keep the human population hydrated. But it is demanding and increases carbon footprints, where diesel is used for transport.

SEPTEMBER 17 2020 - Southern Water seem a bit pre-occupied with security for some reason. We wonder why that might be. Might it have anything to do with the fact that they appear, and it is alleged, that they are part of the planning problem in the Wealden area of Sussex. Part of the problem as in providing services to inappropriate development.

SOUTHERN WATER

The contractors for sewage disposal in Herstmonceux is Southern Water. They are up to their necks in the shit business as their bread and butter. They will pump shit for money, from Shit Creek in Chapel Row, via the A271, Gardner Street, to Victoria Road, no matter what dirty dealings may have gone on concerning planning decisions at Parish and District council levels.

But what about complicity? If, as it is alleged, there is sure to be surface water pollution draining into rivers downstream from the 70 proposed houses at Lime Cross.

The facts as alleged appear to be that Southern Water began construction of the pumping stations in Chappel Row without the benefit of planning permission, in that Latimer and/or Clarion Housing had not complied with a condition. Hence, it appears to those making such enquiries that there may have been a conspiracy to subvert the planning process, with Southern Water claiming use of statutory powers, when they may not have been the owners of the land, hence were operating as agents for Latimer/Clarion - to abuse the planning system. These are the allegations, that tend to support the contention that dirty tricks may also have taken place concerning the displacement of badgers.

If any of this proves to be the case, as may find its way into the Courts, the directors of the company may be vicariously liable. Since, making a profit from crime, such as fraud, can attract confiscation orders in the criminal Courts, or even forfeiture of the land. But more than likely would involve imprisonment or fines, and or damages.

In the case of poisoning wildlife and destroying habitats, such criminal acts carry stiff penalties, as does poisoning drinking water supplies.

Howsoever you look at it, and on the face of it there may be a case to answer - and the public have a right to know.

Southern Water is part of a Group of companies. With South East Water Limited working out of different offices. Between the Group, they provide a comprehensive water supply and waste water treatment service in the south east.

REGISTERED OFFICES

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

JUNE 2020 - Southern Water are nearing the turning into Chapel Row with their pooh pipe. 

DO THEIR TREATMENTS MAKE SENSE?

When looked at under a magnifying glass, the decision to build a pumping station off Chapel Row (Church Road), and pump the putrid defecations up hill to meet with the A271, and then along Gardner Street to Victoria Road, adds more potential problems to an already problematic installation.

For example, the additional pressure might lead to backwash downhill to the village, where there have been problems before. It makes much more sense to drain downhill. It's called gravity!

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.

FARMING & FERTILIZERS - JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)

7 November 2018 (*) In Joined Cases C‑293/17 and C‑294/17, On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:

1. Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that the grazing of cattle and the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface in the vicinity of Natura 2000 sites may be classified as a ‘project’ within the meaning of that provision, even if those activities, in so far as they are not a physical intervention in the natural surroundings, do not constitute a ‘project’ within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

2. Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that a recurring activity, such as the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface, authorised under national law before the entry into force of that directive, may be regarded as one and the same project for the purposes of that provision, exempted from a new authorisation procedure, in so far as it constitutes a single operation characterised by a common purpose, continuity and, inter alia, the location and the conditions in which it is carried out being the same. If a single project was authorised before the system of protection laid down by that provision became applicable to the site in question, the carrying out of that project may nevertheless fall within the scope of Article 6(2) of that directive.

3. Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as not precluding national programmatic legislation which allows the competent authorities to authorise projects on the basis of an ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision, carried out in advance and in which a specific overall amount of nitrogen deposition has been deemed compatible with that legislation’s objectives of protection. That is so, however, only in so far as a thorough and in-depth examination of the scientific soundness of that assessment makes it possible to ensure that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the absence of adverse effects of each plan or project on the integrity of the site concerned, which it is for the national court to ascertain.

4. Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as not precluding national programmatic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, exempting certain projects which do not exceed a certain threshold value or a certain limit value in terms of nitrogen deposition from the requirement for individual approval, if the national court is satisfied that the ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision, carried out in advance, meets the criterion that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the lack of adverse effects of those plans or projects on the integrity of the sites concerned.

5. Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as precluding national programmatic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a certain category of projects, in the present case the application of fertilisers on the surface of land or below its surface and the grazing of cattle, to be implemented without being subject to a permit requirement and, accordingly, to an individualised appropriate assessment of its implications for the sites concerned, unless the objective circumstances make it possible to rule out with certainty any possibility that those projects, individually or in combination with other projects, may significantly affect those sites, which it is for the referring court to ascertain.

6. Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that an ‘appropriate assessment’ within the meaning of that provision may not take into account the existence of ‘conservation measures’ within the meaning of paragraph 1 of that article, ‘preventive measures’ within the meaning of paragraph 2 of that article, measures specifically adopted for a programme such as that at issue in the main proceedings or ‘autonomous’ measures, in so far as those measures are not part of that programme, if the expected benefits of those measures are not certain at the time of that assessment.

7. Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43 must be interpreted as meaning that measures introduced by national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, including procedures for the surveillance and monitoring of farms whose activities cause nitrogen deposition and the possibility of imposing penalties, up to and including the closure of those farms, are sufficient for the purposes of complying with that provision.  [Signatures]

DIRECTORS

AP01 19/06/2020 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MS MARY KATHERINE FULLER

CS01 14/04/2020 CONFIRMATION STATEMENT MADE ON 01/04/20, NO UPDATES

TM01 30/03/2020 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR WENDY BARNES

P01 23/12/2019 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR MALCOLM CHARLES COOPER

AA 05/09/2019 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/03/19

AP01 02/08/2019 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR KEITH GEDDES LOUGH

AP01 01/08/2019 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR KEVIN MCCULLOUGH

TM01 12/04/2019 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR WILLIAM TAME

CS01 12/04/2019 CONFIRMATION STATEMENT MADE ON 01/04/19, NO UPDATES

TM01 12/02/2019 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR IAN FRANCIS

AP01 19/12/2018 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR SEBASTIANUS ANTONIUS THEODORUS BOELEN

TM01 19/12/2018 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR WILLIAM LAMBE

AP01 12/11/2018 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MS GILLIAN LESLEY GUY

TM01 08/10/2018 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR ANDREW GILBERT

AP01 26/09/2018 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR IAN RAYMOND FRANCIS

AA 16/08/2018 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/03/18

AP03 30/07/2018 SECRETARY APPOINTED MR RICHARD DENLEY JOHN MANNING

TM02 30/07/2018 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, SECRETARY JOANNE STATTON

CS01 05/04/2018 CONFIRMATION STATEMENT MADE ON 01/04/18, NO UPDATES

TM01 04/04/2018 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR LISA HARRINGTON

AA 12/10/2017 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/03/17

AP01 11/10/2017 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR ANDREW EMERSON GILBERT

AP01 06/10/2017 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR MICHAEL COLIN PUTNAM

AP01 27/09/2017 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MS SARA SULAIMAN

AP01 27/09/2017 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MS WENDY JACQUELINE BARNES

TM01 27/09/2017 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR MARK WALTERS

TM01 27/09/2017 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR ANDREW TRUSCOTT

SH01 18/04/2017 02/02/17 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL GBP 735198933.07

CS01 12/04/2017 CONFIRMATION STATEMENT MADE ON 01/04/17, WITH UPDATES

RES13 22/03/2017 REDUCED FROM £736198933 10/02/2017

Folder SH19 08/03/2017 08/03/17 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL GBP 198933.07

Capital Statement Icon LATEST SOC 08/03/2017 08/03/17 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL; GBP 198,933.07

TM01 06/03/2017 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR ROBERT JENNINGS

MEM/ARTS 03/03/2017 MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION - ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION

SH20 24/02/2017 STATEMENT BY DIRECTORS

CAP-SS 24/02/2017 SOLVENCY STATEMENT DATED 24/01/17

RES01 24/02/2017 ALTER ARTICLES 06/02/2017

AP01 01/02/2017 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR IAN JAMES MCAULAY

TM01 03/01/2017 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR MATTHEW WRIGHT

AA 20/09/2016 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/03/16

Folder RP04 26/05/2016 SECOND FILING FOR FORM AP01

ANNOTATION 26/05/2016 Clarification - A second filed AP01 for William Anthony Lambe 

TM01 25/05/2016 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR BRONTE SOMES

TM01 25/05/2016 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR PAUL MOY

CH01 20/05/2016 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / MR WILLIAM ANTHONY LAMBE / 03/05/2016

Folder AP01 06/05/2016 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR WILLIAM ANTHONY LAMBE

ANNOTATION 26/05/2016 Clarification - A second filed AP01 was registered on 26/05/2016 

AR01 12/04/2016 01/04/16 FULL LIST

TM01 11/04/2016 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR MICHAEL CARMEDY

AP03 08/10/2015 SECRETARY APPOINTED JOANNE STATTON

TM02 08/10/2015 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, SECRETARY KEVIN HALL

AA 02/09/2015 FULL ACCOUNTS MADE UP TO 31/03/15

TM01 30/06/2015 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR DAVID GOLDEN

SH02 20/04/2015 23/03/11 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL GBP 198933.07

RP04 17/04/2015 SECOND FILING WITH MUD 01/04/14 FOR FORM AR01

AR01 13/04/2015 01/04/15 FULL LIST

AP01 01/04/2015 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MS LISA HARRINGTON

AP01 06/03/2015 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MISS ROSEMARY JANE CECILIA BOOT

TM01 03/02/2015 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR ROBERT ARMSTRONG

TM01 03/02/2015 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR CHERYL BLACK

AP01 29/01/2015 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR ANDREW TRUSCOTT

TM01 29/01/2015 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR PETER ANTOLIK

MAY 2020 - Southern Water getting stuck into their newest shit pumping station in Herstmonceux, Sussex. Human feces (or faeces) are the solid or semisolid remains of food that could not be digested or absorbed in the small intestine of humans, but has been rotted down by bacteria in the large intestine. It also contains bacteria and a relatively small amount of metabolic waste products such as bacterially altered bilirubin, and the dead epithelial cells from the lining of the gut. It is discharged through the anus during a process called defecation. 

LINKS & REFERENCE

https:/