On 17/08/2018 10:57, NY wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 16/08/2018 16:55, NY wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
...
There is absolutely no requirement to modify existing plants. All
existing plants, no matter how old, can be left exactly as built.
The requirement is that you must ensure that the outflow from the
plant does not contaminate a waterway.

Which may amount to the same: you may need either to modify your
plant so its output is cleaner, if it discharges into a waterway, or
else you may need to modify where the unmodified outflow goes
(soakway rather than waterway). One way or the other you may need to
pay, even though your system met the relevant standards when it was
installed.

The result may well be that you need to spend money to clean up the
outfall, but that does not constitute a retrospective application of
current standards to the plant itself.

I think you might be splitting hairs (*) here.

I am arguing a legal point, which is probably much the same thing.

If you need to clean up
the outfall (or direct the outfall elsewhere), having not been required
to previously, then that is retrospective application of a modern
standard onto an old system. Where you make the boundary between "the
plant" and "the outfall" doesn't really matter.

The assertion was that this created a precedent for retrospective
building standards. I am saying that, as it does not apply to all septic
tanks* it does not create a precedent. However, in line with other
environmental legislation, it does mean that some previously acceptable
installations have to be modified.

*in fact the numbers are probably relatively few - it has been a long
time since direct discharge into an open waterway has been permitted.

(*) Or "splitting hares" as I saw someone write, which conjures up the
image of someone attacking a jack or a jill with a cleaver :-)


--
--

Colin Bignell