Firstly I'm attaching part of a report done when SMC enlarged the original Parry's Yard in 2008 which states that the existing yard area drains to the south-west corner - we are east of the yard.
Now I'll attach a page from a design and access statement submitted by Built-Off Site (now renamed Darwin Group) for their first pond planning application.
Now I'm attaching letters sent by Built-Off Site to us after I had to smash the pipe which led only to our septic tank, and my replies.
The above letter was sent to my mother (using the wrong name), and not me. My reply was as follows:-
Again I will attach photographs showing what Darwin Group want to do to our land.
Dear
Sirs,
We are in receipt of
your letter of 16th November 2009 regarding the yard
drainage system. Firstly my mothers name is not ... and secondly as the property is jointly owned
any further correspondence should be addressed to myself.
The yard drainage
system has not been functioning correctly for at least two years.
All of the water from the yard drains into the Forestry Commission
ditch at the rear of Shropshire Mini Mix’s land. This is evidenced
by the positioning of the oil interceptor on SMC’s land. The
Forestry Commission confirmed earlier this year that there is a
blockage near the main road stopping their land from draining and
therefore the yard from draining.
Since February the yard
has not even been connected to this ditch because of a fallen tree
and a build up of dirt behind it. I checked this a month ago and no
action had been taken to remedy this situation, merely a pit dug at
the back of the yard, presumably by SMC.
The ditch north of us
has not been flowing for many years, meaning yard water could not
exit the yard our way, and yet our orchard has never flooded, which
would have been the case if your surface water flowed our way. The
flooding only started early this year when we know the yard
effectively stopped draining. After we severed the connection to our
septic tank, which clearly couldn’t function because of the water
flooding into it, this water forced its way out of the manhole above
ground. We had no option but to stop what was filthy contaminated
water flowing into our orchard and my horses field.
We took every step
available to us to check for any connection from the manhole to the
ditch on our property. SP Holding were adamant that there was no
connection; the pipe which is approx 2 feet down in the manhole was
connected only from our septic tank directly into the manhole, with
the waste water intended to flow through the interceptor. We
employed a drainage contractor to dig out our ditch to double check
for any such connection and did not find one. Because the pipe in
the ditch is approx. 3 feet down any connection would have had to
have been from this pipe.
Furthermore the opinion
of the drainage contractor and two other people was that our manhole
contained diesel as well as filthy yard water. All of this should
have been going through the oil interceptor. As I explained to you
our land contains the former vehicle wash. The manhole on our land
was designed to take the waste water from this wash across the yard
to the interceptor.
My Uncle, who was a
director of the company which installed the drainage system, then
came from Towyn to look at the drainage system. As he stated to
someone at Built Off-Site he believes our manhole is directly
connected to your manhole in front of the office. In his opinion your
gully is ‘teed’ into this drainage pipe, hence it is not draining
because this pipe is permanently full of water. You do not mention
whether any attempt has been made to check whether this is the case,
despite the very dry summer making it easy to check this connection.
The drainage pipe from
our manhole therefore goes to your manhole in front of the office,
around the back of the workshop and on to the oil interceptor and the
Forestry ditch. As already stated this drainage system is designed
to ensure all surface water goes through the oil interceptor.
As the drainage
contractor and my uncle explained, this land is very flat, there is
very little fall on it, which is why the water was backflowing onto
our land rather than pooling above ground.
There can be no dispute
that the manhole on your land does not drain our way because
otherwise all of the yard drainage would come our way, which it
clearly does not. Therefore I am amazed that you are purely targeting
us regarding the failure of the yard drainage system instead of
contacting the Forestry Commission and SMC to get the water flowing
from this yard. All of the drains and gullies are full of mud and
silt which has built up since the drainage stopped flowing freely,
and no attempt has been made to remedy this situation.
Clearly the priority
here is to sort out the yard drainage system. We will not have our
land contaminated and the ditches polluted by yard runoff including
diesel and cement coming through your land from the rest of the yard
simply because it is the easiest way to remedy your situation.
Regarding the willow
tree we can find no evidence of any ‘lifting’ of the tarmac on
your ground from any tree roots. I would suggest though that you
firstly look at the extremely large tree stump from the tree near to
it which was removed around five years ago, and whose roots will now
be dying back.
It is also possible
that any crazing is being caused by water forcing its way around the
drainage pipe and displacing the ground around the pipe. This was
the situation we found when we tried to stop the water entering our
manhole while it was pumped out; it was impossible because water was
flooding in around the pipe.
Yours faithfully,
Built-Off Sites second letter:-
Again I responded:-
In response to your
letter you do not deny that the manhole on your property into which
the gully in front of the workshop feeds and also your far gully
drain into the Forestry ditch on the far side of SMC’s land. This
drainage system is not functioning correctly. Because the disputed
gully is connected to this manhole, and indeed only around 10 feet
from it, you cannot disclaim responsibility for water backflowing
into our manhole.
You are jointly
responsible with other companies in this yard for the maintenance of
this system. It cannot be denied that there is no visible outlet
pipe from this yard. If it is still intact it is at least two feet
under water, and has been for at least twelve months. There is no
connection to the Forestry Commission ditch itself. A pit has been
dug into which water covered with a layer of scum is trickling, at
ground level, under a fallen tree into the ditch. I have enclosed
photographs taken in September showing the pit full of water which is
this yards drainage system. Nothing has changed, I checked this
morning.
Our agricultural
contractor, his employee, and two other people are positive that
there was diesel in our manhole. What you are suggesting is that we
allow the illegal discharge of oil and diesel to a water course on a
daily basis, because your drainage pipe, to which your gully is
connected, also takes all waste water from the workshop, new wash
area, and from the drive area which contains silt and cement.
In the summer you told
me that our willow tree was stopping your gully from working. I
pointed out that the yard drainage system had not been working for a
substantial amount of time and your gully was not working because it
is at the furthest point of this sewer, and that because we had
severed the connection to our manhole your gully was not now
backflowing onto our land. Your gully was at this stage underwater.... opened the manhole in my presence and found it to be absolutely full
of dirty water.
We then proceeded to
R.A. Allmarks land and checked his
gully. Looking down it you yourself stated that the water level
should not be directly under the grid. As evidenced by my
photographs water can only leave this yard through pushing under
pressure into the wood, it is not flowing freely.
Reinstating the pipe
which we disconnected will not connect your gully to the ditch,
because if the water had been backflowing to the ditch we would not
have needed to disconnect it. As already stated, this water was not
going into the ditch but directly underground to our septic tank.
When the pipe was disconnected one month later due to surface
flooding our contractor informed me that the water in this pipe was
black. This is clearly therefore not just water from your gully.
I have again spoken to
my uncle regarding the yard drainage system and have also spoken to J
& H Parry & Sons’ former Contracts Manager, who is a
Chartered Engineer (Ceng MICE). Both have confirmed that the
drainage pipe into which your gully feeds takes all of the surface
water to the Forestry Commission ditch via SMC’s land. No water
from the yard has historically entered the ditch on our land.
Both state that the
drainage system is virtually flat, which has given problems in the
past and means that the system needs constant maintenance, which it
is not now receiving.
They both explained to
me that there has always been a problem because the Forestry
Commission ditch is too shallow and because of this when the system
was put in it was put in with hardly any fall; the further from the
ditch the drainage system is the flatter the drains are. Your gully
and our manhole are at the flattest end of this pipe. This has been
the case for over forty years.
The Engineer we have
consulted has also told me that slow drainage around the gully is not
unusual because of the problems with the falls on the drains – he
was employed by Parry’s for around 20 years and reiterated that
that is why constant maintenance of the drainage system is essential.
Because of the flatness
of the drainage system the water will therefore easily flow our way
if there is a blockage upstream.
What you are suggesting
is that when the yard was built a drainage pipe was installed which
drained both ways, which is not the case. It was designed to take
all surface water to the ditch at the far side of the yard precisely
because of concerns about pollution from the wash and the workshop,
which could have led to a prosecution if contamination to the water
course occurred. This is why the oil interceptor was installed at
the far side of the yard.
Our ground has been
completely undermined by the volume of water forcing its way out onto
our land and onto my grandmothers land, all of which is very much
lower than the yard.
I have been advised to
seek legal advice regarding the damage to our property from the
severe flooding which we experienced due to the water from the yard
backflowing onto our property. I am also going to consult with my
grandmother about joint action against the occupiers of this yard for
negligently failing to take action to ensure the correct functioning
of this drainage system.
The gully outside my
grandmothers property feeds through the field into the main drain.
Because of the failure of this system my grandmother has experienced
severe flooding to her property, including her garden and lawn area,
resulting in her son-in-law having to erect a bund to prevent the
water flowing up her drive to her back door. Water from this gully
has to be able to enter the main drain – it cannot do so if the
main drain is not emptying as designed into the Forestry ditch.
It cannot have escaped
anyones notice that my grandmothers land has been flooding since
before January 2007. SMC were themselves told in 2006 that they had
infilled over the outlet pipe. In May 2009 I emailed the attached
letter (I have not printed the latter part because it is not relevant
to this issue) to SMC and copied it to your email address. (email removed) clearly stating the problems with the drainage system. We received
no response regarding the drainage issues, merely a response from SMC
regarding the borehole.
I have also been
advised to obtain details of your septic tank and whether there is
any connection to the drainage system from this septic tank. I would
therefore be obliged if you would forward a plan showing the system
and the soakaway. If necessary we will be requesting that our
solicitor formally requests this information.
In conclusion when you
fulfil your obligation to ensure your runoff can flow freely to the
Forestry ditch, as it is designed to do, and the drainage system is
emptied and cleaned out, we can then see if your gully drains.
If you are not prepared
to take any steps to fulfil your obligations in this matter then be
assured that we are prepared to go to Court .
Yours sincerely,
After failing to get us to re-instate the pipe to our septic tank, or check the drainage, Built-Off Site then decided to put a 'wildlife' pond in north of our land. A planning application for this had to be withdrawn because although the pond was supposed to be fed only by rain water, they had connected the industrial estate drainage system to it and hidden the pipes. When photographs were submitted showing this a new application for an attenuation pond was submitted.
Getting this withdrawn was a long haul taking 2 years and Built-Off Site AGAIN stated they were taking legal action over our smashed pipe.
This is from the Ombudsmans report of February 2012:-
So here we have a claim by Darwin Group that they have conducted a drainage survey, but no-one asked to survey our land so how was that possible?
Note also that they they never disclosed this survey to the Council or ourselves.
Next we had a letter from their solicitor.
Our solicitor replied:-
Dear Sirs
OUR CLIENT: GAIL
PARRY
YOUR CLIENT: BUILT
OFFSITE LIMITED
Further to our letter
of 14 July 2011, we are now in a position to respond substantively to
your letter to our client of 27 June 2011.
We note that your
client’s claim that they have experienced flooding to their land,
particularly during heavy period of rain, and that this has caused
significant inconvenience and disruption to their business. Our
client is not aware that your client’s land has previously flooded
and we would therefore be grateful if you could please provide
evidence of flooding and further details as to the inconvenience and
disruption this has caused.
We further note that
your client has had a drainage survey carried out which they claim
confirmed that the problems experienced by your client in relation to
flooding has been as a result of a drain being “blocked off” or
damaged at a point where it crosses our client’s land. However,
you have not produced a copy of that survey, which makes it difficult
for us to assess the position fully. We would be grateful if this
could be provided as a matter of urgency.
As regards the drainage
rights contained in the titles to our clients’ respective
properties, these are clearly very vague and refer to those rights
which have been in existence at the time the transfer was made in
1974. There is no mention of what rights have previously been
enjoyed and in what direction any right of drainage would go.
You have referred to
witness statements which will confirm that the drainage system across
our client’s land has been in existence for in excess of 20 years.
Please provide these statements. Our client does not consider that
any witnesses will be able to confirm that the drainage from your
client’s property has been over our client’s land, as this has
simply never been the case. The direction of the drainage from your
client’s land has always been away from our client’s property in
a south westerly direction through the industrial estate into the
Forestry Commission ditch, a ditch system shown on the Ordnance
Survey map.
It is our client’s
position that any problems with the drainage system are as a result
of blockages, possibly by concrete, further along the drainage system
at the other end of the business park. The direction the drainage
flows is away from our client’s property to the south west, as
evidenced by the positioning of an oil interceptor in the south west
corner of the industrial estate to ensure oil, diesel and sewage did
not enter the ditch network.
The drainage does not
and has never flowed across our client’s land. The pipework
situated beneath our client’s land is simply incapable of coping
with drainage from the business park if this were to take the
direction suggested. The reason why it cannot cope is because it was
never intended, and has never been the case, that the flow of
drainage would be across our client’s property. There is a manhole
situated in our client’s garden and it can clearly be seen if the
manhole is open that the pipe from this junction towards our client’s
septic tank is higher than the pipe leading to it from your client’s
property. This clearly suggests that the flow of the drainage is
away from our client’s property, not towards it.
Our client was required
to take action to disable the pipework as there was potential for
serious damage to be caused to our client’s land as a result of the
blockages further along the drainage system. This could have caused
a backflow of polluted water which would have a devastating impact if
this overflowed onto our client’s land.
We therefore do not
consider that your client has any claim against our client when it is
clear that polluted water from your client’s site does not drain
across our client’s property. Should your client continue to
assert that there is a right of drainage over our client’s
property, then we would suggest that the appropriate way of dealing
with the matter would be for a formal drainage survey to be carried
out to establish the direction of the drainage flow and what the
causes of any problems in the drainage system are.
We would be grateful if
you could confirm that your client would be prepared to allow access
to their site (our client will provide seven days’ notice) for a
drainage surveyor to carry out a survey.
We look forward to
hearing from you.
Yours faithfully
Despite two letters we received no reply from their solicitor.
We have still not had a copy of the drainage report.
This was the last we heard about the matter until the letter of 2015 from Shawbury Industrial Estate Management which was signed by a Director of Built-Off Site when AGAIN they stated they would be revisiting the matter.
Clearly what we have here is out and out bullying. I mentioned this matter to a police officer who was at our house because of an incident outside our property, and when I said to him that they would not resolve the issue he stated: 'well, they won't will they'.
The problem for Darwin Group is that although we smashed the pipe, we smashed it at the dividing fence line between our land and theirs. The manhole this pipe feeds into is intact as is the pipe which goes OVER the ditch. We actually exposed this pipe and left it exposed for over six months but no-one wanted to check it.
This is the pipe
This is the pipe
Again I will attach photographs showing what Darwin Group want to do to our land.
I think it's pretty obvious that if there had been a pipe connection to the ditch our land wouldn't have looked like this, would it?
Comments