Thames Anglers' Conservancy Members Forum
TAC Members-Only Forum
If you have arrived here and not yet signed up as a member, then please first join at using your real name.

Forum Membership is with Real Names only.
Please create a Username that is your First Name and Surname eg. "Joe Bloggs"
(This will save our Admin team the need to contact you about changing it)

Thames Anglers' Conservancy Members Forum
HomeHome  TAC Home PageTAC Home Page  SearchSearch  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Display results as :
Rechercher Advanced Search
Latest topics
» The Big one - Farnborough 23rd-24th March 2019
Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:30 am by Keith Collett

» Thames So Full Of Cocaine It’s Pranging Out London’s Eels
Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:27 am by Trevor Rowe

» "Citizen Crane" project - sampling dates
Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:51 am by Ed Randall

» New Members: Real Names please
Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:36 am by Ed Randall

» Semi-Tidal draw-off 2018
Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:44 pm by Ed Randall

» Thames Water Blitz - 19th/20th October 2018
Tue Oct 02, 2018 7:21 pm by Ed Randall

» Citizen Crane Forum ~ 26th October 2018
Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:41 pm by Ed Randall

» Invitation to the 2018 Eel forum ~ 15th October
Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:38 pm by Ed Randall

» Mystery of dead eels found in rivers
Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:43 pm by Ed Randall

» Eel Trap Clean Up/ training 5th May 2018 10am
Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:40 pm by Ed Randall

» A new address for 2017 ~
Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:48 pm by Admin

» Hampton Riviera removed
Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:41 pm by Ed Randall

» Roads closed everywhere ~ July 29th/30th ~ bike race
Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:14 am by John LeSurf

» *Thames Tunnel (Tideway Tunnel)*
Wed Jul 18, 2018 9:56 am by John LeSurf

» new hotel at hampton court means loss of fishing
Wed Jul 04, 2018 1:26 pm by Ed Randall

» FORCE clean-up in Donkey Wood ~ Sun 13th May 2018
Thu May 17, 2018 10:16 am by JeffHowe

Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:23 pm by John LeSurf

» penton hook tidy up.
Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:05 am by John LeSurf

» Riverfly & Clean-up Donkey Woods Saturday 18th Nov 2017
Sat Dec 23, 2017 1:02 pm by Ed Randall

» Biggest fish of all book
Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:43 pm by Adrian Hoare

» Wandle Trust - eel pass installation - call for volunteers
Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:53 am by Ed Randall

» Outfall Safari across London - call for Volunteers!
Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:47 am by Ed Randall

» Fishing the Thames at Medley
Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:33 pm by Trevor Rowe

» Thames Semi-Tidal Draw Off 2017
Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:08 pm by Ed Randall

» Eel Trap Results 2017
Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:07 pm by patrick barker

» Fish-swallowing Angler "lucky to be alive"
Sat Oct 14, 2017 8:01 am by Ed Randall

» River Mole polluted at Horley
Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:52 am by Ed Randall

» Petition to stop the export of elvers
Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:16 pm by Ed Randall

» Riverfly Training ~ Hogsmill ~ 30th Sept 2017
Sat Sep 16, 2017 6:56 am by Ed Randall

» Monster fatberg in Whitechapel
Tue Sep 12, 2017 1:40 pm by Ed Randall

Angling Data View
River Levels
UK Map

Thames Tides

Share | 

 Clarifying the right to discharge from sewers

Go down 
Ed Randall

Ed Randall

Male Posts : 3280
Join date : 2010-11-19
Age : 53
Location : Twickenham

PostSubject: Clarifying the right to discharge from sewers   Sat Aug 02, 2014 9:27 pm

Clarifying the right to discharge from sewers
By Richard Macrory
ENDS Report 474, August 2014, pp. 24-25
29 July 2014 14:25 BST

Richard Macrory, professor of environmental law, University College London

The Supreme Court has recently clarified the extent to which sewerage undertakers have the statutory right to discharge surface water and treated effluent into rivers and canals.

The result in Manchester Ship Canal Company Ltd v United Utilities Water Plc (Supreme Court [2014] UKSC 40, 2 July 2014) has important financial implications, especially for canal owners and the new Canal and River Trust (the charitable successor to the British Waterways Board). Neither will now be able to charge fees for discharge from pipes built before 1991.

The issue about rights to discharge goes back to Victorian case law on public health when sewerage and water functions were vested in local councils. In 1897 the Court of Appeal held that provisions under the Public Health Act 1875 meant there was an implied statutory right given to councils to discharge surface water and treated effluent into watercourses. No compensation had to be given for this right unless damage was caused.

These provisions were repeated in the Public Health Act 1936 but it was the legislation following the privatisation of the water industry in 1989 that began to raise questions as to whether these rights survived. The Water Industry Act 1989 was replaced in 1991 by new legislation designed principally to consolidate water law and to give effect to some recommendations of the Law Commission. The complexities of the Water Industry Act 1991 and its accompanying legislation the Water Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Act 1991, and the extent to which they had changed existing law, were at the heart of the case.

The issue had last been considered by the Court of Appeal in 2002 in a case brought by the British Waterways Board. It challenged the right of Severn Trent to discharge surface water into its canal. The High Court held that the implied statutory rights had survived privatisation, but the Court of Appeal held the 1991 legislation had removed them. The House of Lords refused leave to appeal.

Essentially, the Manchester canal case raised the same problem but this time the Supreme Court was prepared to consider the issue. It agreed that the various provisions on which the implied right to discharge had been held to rest since 1897 had been repeated in the Water Act 1989. Lord Sumption said: “The draftsman must therefore have intended in 1989 that the right should subsist.”

But the court noted that the 1991 consolidation legislation repeated some of the provisions but not in precisely the same way. For example, the general right to compensation from the exercise of statutory powers under previous legislation, which went someway to protect the owner of a watercourse from abuse of these powers, was now restricted to pipe-laying powers.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal in the British Waterways case that the changes contained in the 1991 legislation meant it was no longer possible to imply a right to discharge. As Lord Sumption noted: “A sewerage undertaker bringing an outfall into use for the first time after 1 December 1991 can reasonably be expected to have obtained any necessary consents to discharge onto private property in the course of laying the pipes either by negotiation or by compulsory purchase in the course of the planning or the works.”

But the court then went on to consider whether this analysis should apply to existing pipes in use before 1991, an issue not explored in the British Waterways case. Lord Sumption felt that it would be completely impracticable for undertakers to have to assume discharges from existing pipes were no longer legal.

The owners of waterways could threaten a trespass action and although the Manchester Ship Canal Company argued that in practice any injunction would be suspended until the parties had negotiated an agreement, when pressed as to what an undertaker should do if an injunction were granted, they argued that the undertaker would have to block the outfalls and allow surface water and treated effluent to backwash through the system into the streets. Lord Sumption was unimpressed: “Without the clearest possible indication that parliament intended such a preposterous result, I decline to accept that is the effect of the current legislative scheme.”

The court, however, was able to locate another provision of the Water Industry Act which prohibited a sewerage undertaker from depriving someone of the right to connect to public sewers unless an alternative means was provided. According to Lord Toulson, this section “impliedly (if not expressly) empowers the undertaker to continue to use such sewers” subject to the qualification in the next section that they must not cause pollution or a nuisance.

Underlying concerns

The analysis in the canal case is a clever and practical approach to a difficult issue of statutory construction. But some underlying concerns remain.

It would be quite possible to argue that as a matter of privatisation policy, the 1989 Water Act had removed the right to discharge without payment, a cost that would in future be borne by the private sector and no doubt be passed on to the customer.

But their lordships agreed that the 1989 legislation had preserved the rights and the position only changed under the 1991 act. This was a consolidation rather than a privatisation act and though it was also to give effect to some proposals of the Law Commission, the commission had made no proposals as to discharge rights. The provisions in question were so technical that none of their implications were discussed or debated in parliament.

The court made clear that their interpretation should not affect any agreements that undertakers had made with owners of watercourses over and above their statutory rights, although it is likely that any agreements negotiated following the British Waterways decision relating to existing sewers will be revisited.

There may also be arguments in the future as to precisely when the post 1991 restrictions come into play when it comes to repairing an existing sewer. A minor repair is unlikely to affect existing rights, but the laying, say, of a replacement section of pipe, even on the existing route, might well be argued to be a post 1991 sewer or drain and containing no implied discharge rights.

Richard Macrory is professor of Environmental Law, University College London

TAC Secretary
Angling Trust member #61385
Back to top Go down
patrick barker

patrick barker

Posts : 596
Join date : 2013-05-28

PostSubject: Re: Clarifying the right to discharge from sewers   Sat Aug 02, 2014 11:20 pm

'unless damage is caused' i think is the thing the edict hinges on.- hard to measure until fish or invertebrates go belly up. then firms are obliged to pay recompense. but its the slow trickle of crap that goes in, and prevents the water meeting its potential as a place for people to visit for their enjoyment that needs to be addressed. there could be trout where there is not trout.
Back to top Go down
Clarifying the right to discharge from sewers
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» Sewage Discharge Notification

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Thames Anglers' Conservancy Members Forum :: Open Section :: News Board :: News-
Jump to: