Image from Google Jackets

Southern Water Authority v Nature Conservancy Council

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; (1993) 65 PCR 55-64(6)Publication details: 1993Subject(s): Summary: HL 16 July 1992. In 1982 the Nature Conservancy Council notified an area of land as a site of special scientific interest under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 s28. The site included a ditch and notification was given to the two farmers owning land either side of the ditch and the water authority who owned land elsewhere on the site. In 1987 the farmers asked the authority to dredge the ditch to mitigate flooding. No agreement was reached with the NCC and no written notice was given to them. In 1989 the authority, acting under Land Drainage Act 1976 s17, drained the ditch. This caused damage to the natural features which the SSSI was designed to protect. The NCC laid eight informations against the authority under s28(7) of the Act. The authority said they had no cause to answer as they were not the owners of the ditch. It was held that they were responsible as they were occupiers of the ditch during the weeks when the work was carried out. On appeal the conviction was quashed. NCC
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article Z3173 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 51426-1001

HL 16 July 1992. In 1982 the Nature Conservancy Council notified an area of land as a site of special scientific interest under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 s28. The site included a ditch and notification was given to the two farmers owning land either side of the ditch and the water authority who owned land elsewhere on the site. In 1987 the farmers asked the authority to dredge the ditch to mitigate flooding. No agreement was reached with the NCC and no written notice was given to them. In 1989 the authority, acting under Land Drainage Act 1976 s17, drained the ditch. This caused damage to the natural features which the SSSI was designed to protect. The NCC laid eight informations against the authority under s28(7) of the Act. The authority said they had no cause to answer as they were not the owners of the ditch. It was held that they were responsible as they were occupiers of the ditch during the weeks when the work was carried out. On appeal the conviction was quashed. NCC