Section 106 Agreement Severn Trent
19. The term “commercial wastewater” was defined as follows in section 14, paragraph 1 of PHDTPA 1937: 46. As noted in the general information section, royalties could not be measured or measured, but all non-households had to be measured. Three elements of the measured loads: (1) a water supply charge based on water measured at one metre, (2) water consumed (including domestic wastewater), which are also based on water used and measured by the meter, and (3) surface water drainage, which is normally based on the value of the building and covers the costs of rainwater drainage. A fourth levy would apply if commercial wastewater were discharged. (2) The 1996 agreement was maintained until replaced by the 2000 Convention, although the 1996 convention was amended by a letter of 12 March 1998 and by an agreement of 1 April 1999, as I indicated in the “Fact Fund” section of that judgment. The letter stated that the taxes payable would then be payable under the royalty system, while the agreement related instead to the royalties set out in a royalty schedule. To the extent that the royalty system applied for part of the 1996 agreement period, my conclusions would apply to question 2. 36. Sections 142 and 143 were amended by subsequent legislation. However, the only significant change was that between December 1999 and October 2015, a royalty system only took effect if it had been approved by Ofwat.
As of November 2015, a royalty system would not require prior authorisation, but could be held liable for Vonwat if it did not comply with certain legal and/or regulatory provisions. 98. Severn Trent argued at this request that Boots` three-base contractual situation had no real chance of success: (1) the 1996 agreement, the 2000 agreement and the 2005/2015 consents were all between Severn Trent and Boots plc and not between Boots; (2) Since 2005, there has been no agreement, but only 2005/2015 authorizations that are not contracts; and (3) The 1996 and 2000 agreements had a contractual effect, but were not service provision agreements. 43. In 2005, the parties moved away from the agreements and instead used an approval system. The first such agreement was dated August 26, 2005 (the “Consent 2005”) and was addressed to Boots plc.