HALL think that they should. 

In both locations it could be argued that the liquid effluent is so diluted by storm water that it poses no threat.  We would not challenge this argument on technical grounds, but there is always the aesthetic damage to consider. 

However, the overflow discharge is in most cases is from manholes which are situated in land which is easily accessible to the public.  As can be seen at these locations the overflow discharge is depositing light solid material along side the manholes.  There will also be solid particles of contaminants deposited which will not be obvious to the naked eye.  Over time it is possible that the levels of these contaminants will elevate to levels which could be a hazard. 

Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 deals with what is referred to as Statutory Nuisance.  One such nuisance is “any accumulation or deposit which is prejudicial to health” -  local GP’s claim that the deposits are prejudicial to health. 

Statutory Nuisance does not apply if the land is declared to be contaminated land.  In which case the Act prescribes an alternative route for getting the hazard removed.  However, initiating action in either way depends on the local authority either declaring the land as being contaminated or serving a summary notice on the person who has caused the deposit to occur.   

In our opinion it is the Council’s responsibility to use summary powers as far as they can to assist SEPA and to fulfil its duties in relation to protecting public health.  Moreover, Environmental Services employ 1,700 people - two of them could fence-off the dangerous areas.