27/09/2005 - The Environment
Agency yesterday (Monday 26 September 2005)
prosecuted a man for causing farm slurry to
enter a stream near Uckfield, East Sussex.
David Pitts appeared before Lewes Magistrates
Court on 26 September 2005 and pleaded guilty
to the 2 offences of causing farm slurry to
enter the Ridgewood Stream on 10 September
2004 and 13 October 2004. He was fined a total
of £4,000 and ordered to pay £1,014
costs.
David Pitts is a partner in Ridgewood Farm
near Uckfield. On 18 August 2004 Environment
Agency officers visited the Ridgewood Farm
as part of a routine water quality investigation.
Officers were concerned about the findings
so returned to the farm in September. Whilst
there they saw a dark plume of effluent discharging
from a pipe that was located on the farm and
entering Ridgewood Stream. The officers took
a sample of the discharge and of the water
quality upstream and downstream of it.
On a return visit in October, officers once
again saw discharge coming from the farm and
this had caused a dark brown plume in the
stream. A sample was taken of the discharge.
The Environment Agency carried out an investigation
of drainage systems at the farm. This showed
that the drain receiving dirty water and slurry
from the farmyard, as well as surface water
from the roof drainage, had been wrongly connected
to the surface water outlet. This meant that
the waste water was discharging into the stream
instead of the dirty water system.
Speaking after the case, Environment Officer
Elizabeth Wood, said: “Mr Pitts had a complex
drainage system that was incorrectly linked
but he should have taken steps to check that
the slurry was being properly dealt with and
not just discharging into the stream. An incident
like this can have catastrophic effects on
the local environment –it is likely that this
pollution has had a long-term impact on both
the chemical quality and biological life in
this stream.”
In mitigation, the defendant fully admitted
the offence but stated that he took over the
management of the farm in 1995 and the work
would have been done before this time. He
has now spent £5,000 putting the drainage
system right. The Magistrates took into account
the defendant’s co-operation, the work undertaken
to repair the system and the clean-up costs
but stated that they look upon pollution of
a watercourse seriously.
