A COUPLE have been handed huge fines after being prosecuted for failing to ensure the cleanliness of a private water supply.

In what is believed to be just the second prosecution of its kind in UK legal history, Robert Deacon and Beverley Deacon, of Old Wood Farm, Eldwick, appeared at Bradford and Keighley Magistrates Court on Tuesday.

They both pleaded guilty to "failure to comply with a notice issued re private water supply in England being a potential danger to human health" - a charge that related to the farm.

Mr Deacon, 59, was forced to pay a total of £7,505 and Mrs Deacon, 56, a total of £3,190.

The court had heard that inspections of the water had found a number of pathogens and metals in the supply, but the couple failed to take action to improve water quality.

And they said during their court case that they would not be making any changes in future.

The case had been brought by the Environment Agency and Bradford Council.

Harjit Singh Ryatt, prosecuting the case, told magistrates: "This is an unusual case. It is only the second time a prosecution has been brought in relation to a private water supply since regulations were introduced in 2016."

He said under the regulations any private water supply has to be vetted by the local council to make sure the water is "wholesome."

They heard that the farm, on Old Wood Lane, had been converted into several dwellings, all of which received their water from a private water supply.

Shop owner fined after cigarettes sold to 15-year-old girl

Water came from a stream on a neighbouring field, and was piped into various chambers, before eventually being piped into the three properties on the land.

Mr Ryatt said some of these chambers were open to the elements, and had not been fenced off to keep grazing animals away from the water supply.

The court heard that Bradford Council had attempted to access the site to test the water supply to see if it was fit for human consumption since 2013, but between 2013 and 2016 officers had been unsuccessful in gaining access, being prevented by Mr and Mrs Deacon, who managed the site.

When the Council was finally able to get a water sample in 2016, it was sent off to be inspected. Mr Ryatt said: "It came back that the water supply was contaminated with various pathogens including EColi."

He said the water was "unwholesome and unfit for human consumption."

Mr Deacon was asked to carry out works to improve the situation, and the water quality. Originally a deadline of October 2017 was given. This was later extended to December that year.

In December 2018 the Council collected a water supply from one of the homes on the farm. That sample was found to contain pathogens as well as metals, including Magnesium.

Public Health England were informed of the situation, and the water supply was classed as having the potential to be a public health risk. The Council served the notice on the couple in April 2019, informing them they had to improve the water quality by May. The Council were denied permission to return to the farm to collect water samples.

On February 14 this year the Council obtained a warrant to access the property, and a sample collected found that little had changed. Public Health England determined that the water should not be used for drinking or bathing.

Mr Ryatt said: "The Council has been trying to resolve this situation for seven years, first on an informal basis and then we were obliged to take action."

The Deacon's represented themselves in court.

Mr Deacon said that the water had been supplied the same way since the family took on the farm in the 1970s. He said nobody had become ill from drinking the water.

Although the properties on the land had been rented out in the past, they were now all occupied by the family.

He said: "The water has never made any of us poorly. We don't like being told to change something that isn't broken.

"I'm not sure what the Council is hoping to achieve other than fining us.

"After Covid is done and they come back to test the water, the system will be the same."

He said they had come to court to find out what the Council wanted from them.

Presiding judge Justice Paul Broomhead said: "That could have been answered during the past seven years had you worked with the Council.

"If that occurred we would not be here today."

Sentencing the pair, he said: "We found a high level of culpability. For seven years there was a failure to communicate or cooperate with the Council.

"You stated in open court that you will change nothing if the Council visit again.

"This is a potential public health risk.

"I have taken into account that you have no previous convictions and I have given credit for your guilty pleas."

He fined Mr Deacon £5,000 and ordered him to pay £2,315 costs and a £190 surcharge.

He fined Mrs Deacon £2,000 and ordered her to pay £1,000 costs and a £190 surcharge.

He added: "Should you come to court again to face this type of charge I suspect the sentence will be more than a fine."