Symud i'r prif gynnwys
Cuddio Rhestr Erthyglau

8 erthygl ar y dudalen hon

ALLEGED RIVER POLLUTION AT…

Newyddion
Dyfynnu
Rhannu

ALLEGED RIVER POLLU- TION AT LLANRWST. ISGOED JONES v. THE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL. CASE IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION. YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. (From Our London Correspondent.) In the Chancery Division, Mr Justice Parker, had opened beforo him to-day week this action, by which the plaintiff sought to restrain an alleg-4 pollution of the River Conway. Mr Romer, K.C., and Mr E. P. Sh.ewi}ii. appeared for th-o plaintiff, end Mr Macmoiran, K.C., ami Mr Tamil 11 for the defendant. j In opening the case Mr Romer eaid that the plaintiff was the owner oi a freehold house known as Piasyndre', formerly cabled i'tn- as-adre', which was within the urban district of La-anrwst. It was bounded om the West side by the River Conway which then flowed from the south to the north. defendants were the District Council of Lta.ru-west, and the object of the act ion was to re-strain them from discharging into the. River Can way, a.t a point opposite the plain- tiff's property, the sewage iroia the district without. fi,rst freeing it from all foul and noxious matter to the deterioration of the property aud the quality of the watiar of the river. it was a little startling to learn at this time' of day, that there was to be found a sanitary authority winch was discharging, as this sanitary authority was discharging, crude sewage into a river like the river Conway. They were pro- hibited from doing any such tiling by the Public Health Act, and they were forbidden by the Rivers Pollution Act, and yet they were going to say they had a right to do it. There were about 2J00 or 2700 inhabitants residing in the district, and there were some 500 VV.C.'s whicn discharged daily into the river. But the more extraordinary circumstances in the caso was that if the defendants found themselves in difficulties it was their own doing. There were numerous cases where sanitary authorities had become tho owners of sewers laid out by their predecessors, and not in acoordanco with sanitary science as was known now; and those authorities had found themselves conlronted by problems of great difiiculty in getting rid of sewage according to modern science. They had taken steps to get rid of sewago without giving offence, but in this case the defendants seemed to be absolutely satisfied with tha present condition ot tilings, and they intended to make no alterations, and unless they were re- strained by an injunction of the court they intend 2d to go on with th-eir disgusting habits and discharge C'rudJe sewage into the river Con- way. The portion of river into which these sewers were being discharged wore being turned into NOTHING MORE THAN AN OPEN CESSPOOL. The history of the case could be put quite shortly. The property of the plaintiff consisted of a house and about 16 acres of land. It was bounded n the west by tho river Gonway, and had a frontage to the river of about 550 yards. It was bounded on the south by a small stream called the E.flbach, but with that his Lordship would have little or nothing to do. Tho pro- perty being bounded on tho West by the river Conway, it naturally followed that the plaintiff also entitled to halt the bed of the r.ver. The defendants had in their defence raised every point that was opem to them, and they wished 0 deny that tho plaintiff was entitled to any •part of the bed of the river. They alleged that at tins point the river Conway was a tidal river, but h.s Lordship would see from the photo- E'raphs that at this point it was a series of stones and pools, though he understood that in soa.3 of the pools there were fish. It was a |?lac3 that was v,ted by a number of people an the summer months, but if these people would take his advice they wou.d not go near the river, or at any rate that portion of it that passed the plaintiff's pr-p_ity. The plaintiff bought tho projterty quite recently, the conveyance to him being dated January 14fch, 1905. It was, of course, JD- nied by the defendants that lie was the owner; that he ever was in possession, and that re vas :u i'o&sos&»on but counsel thought ,I¡ilt pat. of the case was not seriously relied ')n by the defendants. The plaintiff subsequently took a conveyance of land at the S.W. corner of his property, but counsel did not think that any- thing would turit upon whether he was entitled to that portion of the property or not. The oonveyance, however, was effected on March 19th, 1910. lIo did not (Uiink anything would turn upon the ownership, but the contention of tho defendants apparently was that there was this piece of land between the land conveyed to Mr Jones and the r,yer. With regard to the sewers which the District Council drained into the river they were two in number, and could be called conveniently No. 1 and No. 2. So far as could be gathered, before 1874 there as no sewage scheme in existence in Llanrwst; at all events there were no sewers that discharged into the river Conway. In the year 1874 there was constructed a sewer for the dischargo of 6ewago into the river, which, for at least part of its course, passed through land that now belonged to the plaintifF. It was stated as being created in 1879, though it appeared to have been constructed in 1874. The then sanitary authority, however, did not seem to have thought it neces- sary to obtain any consent from tho owner of tho land on which they placed the sewer, and .when he protested, as he seemed to have done, they entered into an agreement, dated lltli of October, 1879, and it was because of that agree- ment that it is referred to as the sewer of 1879. That agreement was made between John Robert Griffiths, the then owner in the one part, and the sanitary authority of the other part, and it was an agreement to which apparently the de- fendants attached some importance. In the year 18-32 it was found by the Corporation that it was not convenient to discharge the whole of its Sewage through sewer No. 1, and they, accord ingly, entered into negotiations with the then tenant for life of the plaintiff's property with a view to obtain an casement for laying a sewer in tho position shown of what is now sewer No. 2. It would be found from that agreement that it Was contemplated that No. 2 should be brought across the plaintiff's land and be connected with Bower No. 1. After the agreement, sewer No. 2 Was laid to a point where it connected with the tewcr of 1879, and from the point, of connection down to the point of of the 1879 seive-r, the one sewer carried the discharge from both the sewers so that there was still only one discharge into the rivers. That want on until 1891, when the defendants made soma altera- tjons. They extended sewer No. 2, which now discharged right into the river. At the time the sewers were originally made there were not nianv houses that had any connection with •ewers, and from that time down to a much more recent date rot much sewage came down to this part. In 1891 it was discovered that THE SEWER IIEAl) BECAME CLOGGED. It had not been laid with sufficient fall or something of that kind, and in the year 1891, this same Sanitary Authority cut off part of the sewer and substitu ted for it at the river another sewer indicated on the plan by dotted lines and mark- ed sewer No. 1. That sewer as at present, did not go over tho land belonging- to the plaintiff. It was not, therefore, contained in the plaintiff's conveyance, but it was sufficient for ks case that sewer No. 1 was discharging on to his land. The fact was that sewage solid matter and other objectionable thing's were discharged aJong the plaintiff's banks. In the year 1897 the then parish of Llanrwst v.-as divided into two, and it was a matter of !j()1IJe import.anoo to show that the District Council had done something them- lves, and had not merely taken over these sewers. The plaintiff would show that at that tbte they were applying to the Local Government Board for powers to borrow £ 300 far the purpose of making sewers. In inuncrous e.a&es they had passed plans of pro- posed new houses, which plans showed con- nections with the exis-ting sewers. These showed active proceedings on the part of the defendants. Pheio wore 580 waiter closets besides public conveniences a.nd elaugbter- h001303 now dra.,ned into these sewers. The ¡ flow of the river was considerably faster on thQ west "e--the Fidn opposite the. plain- tiff's -ppupeirty, and the water on the side of the piairS-iff's propexty was altway-s more or liens stagnant. From that his Lordship 4-oic. see that in 1891 the outfall w.as placed I 'in the worst possible position that it could I be placed. The open, jug of the sewer was brought diagonally a-cr'srs the worst part -=- -=- of the stream. ni -o result was that the 11 sewage and other matter discharged into the stream came down past the plaintiff's r TO- perty into a part w.h.cr.o thert was formed a. kind of a branch eddy, which wrought it. lJack and deposited on the boilk at the plain- tiff's side. At any rata the defendants could prevent the solid matter, such as paper, from coming out. His witnesses would show that they could rc-me-dy the matter at a very slight expanse.. During the winter months there was a considerable flow of water, and the river was apparently visited bv floods. When there was a flood the nuisance wai to same extent removed. but. what nua-io it so serious for the plaintiff was that this stuff re- mained there for a considerable time. it got dejKxsited ou the bottom and along the sides of tee banks, and that the-Hoods fated to remove.* The floods did not carry Rway ail tliis filthy oiuif; aji that happened was that tila stuff was carried up j-ust a little higher. The plaintiff was de- sirous of developing has land, which was now ripe fcr development, but ai it was it was im- possible to dispose o! any part that was anywhere e -o near the river, while the present condition of things continued. The piainiiff based his ease up-on trespass, and if the defendants sought to justify their act; by the Public Health Act, then • reJed upon section 17 of that Act, and said tibay created a public aiuiswnoe. They had no do- l'. ,(\ ui:dc-r licence; there was this nuisance, a.nd lre did no see how ior. could be justified. At prezent they were discharging into the river. so us to trespass upon th& plaintiff's land, and so !<• cause a nuisance Tho oourt then adjourned before tho learned counsel had concluded his speech. <s>

FRIDAY'S HEARING.

* WED-NESDAY'S HEARING. -,

Advertising

LLANDUDNO.

[No title]

Advertising

* WED-NESDAY'S HEARING. -,