MP challenges water firm over village supply

By County Press Reporter

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

 

ISLE of Wight MP Andrew Turner has challenged the chief executive of Southern Water, Matthew Wright, to take part in a public debate on the row over water charges between the company and residents in Gatcombe and Chillerton.

During a debate in the House of Commons last night (Tuesday) Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) minister James Paice, urged both sides to enter into independent arbitration to try to solve the issue.

The row centres over an agreement drawn-up in 1907 by philanthropist Sir Charles Seely who gave land to the then Shanklin Urban District Council in exchange for either free or reduced water rates for residents. The entitlement was supposed to last for 999 years.

However, Southern Water which has taken over the rights and liabilities of the agreement, has declared that the agreement has 'run its course.’

The company has so far refused to go to arbitration to solve the dispute.

Speaking after Tuesday’s debate, Mr Turner said: "If Southern Water are so certain they are right why won’t they enter into arbitration? They know that there is no realistic prospect of them being taken to court by the 'little people’ and they also know that their regulator has refused to get involved.

"They are interpreting the law to be what they want it to be, and riding roughshod over my constituents. Southern Water is a huge monopoly supplier and that is disgraceful."

He added: "If Southern Water continues to ignore such eminently reasonable advice , then I call on Matthew Wright to attend a public meeting on the Island to explain why.

"He can also bring along his lawyers if he likes and they can explain how a legal agreement signed for 999 years is no longer valid afer just 100 years."

Comments

Log-in or register to comment on this story.

By ticking "Remember me" you agree to a cookie being stored on your computer - no personal data is shared.

Forgotten your password?

Log-in to Report

by Russell Palin

21st June 2012, at 20:40:40

In reply to Graeme Egerton.
Its not about the water, it is about written legal agreements which are part of property and land deeds. Do these agreements stand or not?

Log-in to Report

by Graeme Egerton

21st June 2012, at 14:18:44

Surely the idea of this agreement was to look after local workers in tied accommodation. I can't see why the rest of us should effectively have to subsidise a small percentage of the population. My own water bill costs around twenty pounds a month: I am more than happy to pay this and let's not forget that we are now on meters, this certainly wasn't the case in nineteen waybackwhen. A waste of parliament's time and I hope this never sees the inside of a courtroom!

Log-in to Report

by Russell Palin

21st June 2012, at 11:01:36

The main point is the legal ramifications of Sothern Water V Chillerton, this is very important. Written legal agreements are they binding.
What is the answer we are going to hear?

The people of Chillerton will need to set up a fighting fund if they are to defend themselves.

Log-in to Report

by Russell Palin

21st June 2012, at 10:44:19

If this sets a president it could be very bad indeed.
Just think of all the Forestry commission land that is held for 999 years on the Isle of Wight.
A written leagal agreement is binding, Southern Water are being very silly. The bad publicity from this will be very damaging to a responsible company like Southern Water.
Just wait untill it hits the TV news, they will soon back down, come on Chillerton get that PR machine rolling.

Log-in to Report

by Stuart Robertson

21st June 2012, at 10:25:31

In reply to S Jones - the agreement was made over 100 years ago! for a 999 year timespan, thats ridicoulous!. Footballers (just and example) sign 4 year contracts and they get broken all the time. - Times change and a 999 year agreement made 100 years ago is silly. - Water companies do a lot more to make the water they are using safer now than they did 100 years ago. I'm sure the residents would soon start to complain if they got the same supply quality as they did there 100 + years ago!?

Log-in to Report

by Deborah Alexander

20th June 2012, at 18:34:28

When is a legal agreement not a legal agreement? Answer: When it is ignored by a wealthy company. Surely we all know that if a small company breaks the law they are prosecuted but time after time larger companies or people with money simply do as they please.

Log-in to Report

by S Jones

20th June 2012, at 15:52:28

In reply to Stuart - Why not? An agreement is an agreement. If you signed a lease on a house, you'd expect that to last the length of time agreed.

Personally I think the agreement it should be honoured. It was a signed agreement and everyone was happy at the time. Why do people have to get bitter and greedy just because they don't get free water or just want more money from people!

Southern Water clearly know they can't do anything about it legally, otherwise they would take the necessary action.

Log-in to Report

by Stuart Robertson

20th June 2012, at 14:58:53

Of course the residents there should have to pay water rates - the agreement was drawn up over 100 years ago!....... an agreement drawn-up in 1907 by philanthropist Sir Charles Seely who was surely looking after the well-being of people then and although he signed the agreement for a 999 year period could not of seriously thought it would last anywhere near that length of time!

Any views or opinions presented in the comments above are solely those of the author and do not represent those of the Isle of Wight County Press.

Facebook Icon Twitter Icon Delicious Icon

More News

1 - 2 - 3 - 4