Decision Date: December 17, 1996

Panel: David Perry, Johnder Basran, Harry Higgins

Keywords: holding tank; restrictive covenant; power to award costs; application for an adjournment; Ministry of Health Policy for On-Site Sewage Disposal – c. 6; Sewage Disposal Regulation – s. 2, s.7, authority to monitor system, zoning, rationale for Holding Tank policy.

This is an appeal by a group of citizens (the “Appellants”) against a sewage disposal permit issued by the Environmental Health Officer (the “EHO”) to South Surrey Independent School Society. The Appellants appealed on a number of grounds, including that the permit did not comply with the applicable statutes, regulations and policies, the EHO did not obtain sufficient data with regard to environmental protection and health hazards before issuing the permit, the conditions imposed by the EHO did not offer reasonable protection to public health and the environment and the issuance of a permit for a holding tank set a dangerous precedent.

The Board concluded that the professionally designed holding tank/pump and hand system was appropriate as the site was unsuitable for an in-ground sewage disposal system and the City of Surrey guaranteed to ensure the control, access, maintenance, servicing and ultimate disposal of waste material as required by Ministry policy. The Board held that the use of a holding tank was permitted under the Regulation in view of its finding that there was not a public sewer within a reasonable distance from the lot boundary. On the evidence presented, the Board found that the tank, as constructed, would not leak, affect the surrounding water table, be affected by waterflows within the ground or be at risk from earthquake damage. The Board further found that restrictions governing the installation, operation, maintenance and repair of the holding tank were sufficient to ensure that the system would not pose a threat to the environment or public health. The Board held that the issuance of this permit for a holding tank would not lead to its widespread use as the very high costs associated with a holding tank and the requirement that a local government authority must assume responsibility for its operation make it an unattractive option for sewage disposal.

The appeal was dismissed.