South West Water fined £7.87m over sewage pollution offences in Devon and Cornwall
Plymouth magistrates fined South West Water almost £8m for pollution offences between 2015 and 2021. The company apologised and cites investment; an MP called the penalty a slap on the wrist.
Updated (version 2). New coverage since the last version from The Times of India.
1 / 3
The story, neutrally told
South West Water was fined almost £8m for hundreds of sewage spills across Devon and Cornwall over a six-year period. Sky NewsN “South West Water (SWW) has been fined almost £8m for hundreds of sewage spillages across Devon and Cornwall over a six-year period.” Read at Sky News ↗ The Guardian gives the figure as £7,867,733, imposed at Plymouth magistrates court, and calls it the largest fine for environmental offences in the region. The GuardianLC “Fining SWW £7,867,733 at Plymouth magistrates court – the largest fine for environmental offences in the region” Read at The Guardian ↗ The offences took place between January 2015 and July 2021 at locations including Bodmin, Harlyn, Polperro, Plymouth and Playing Place. City A.M.RC “incidents that took place between January 2015 and July 2021 in Bodmin, Harlyn, Polperro, Plymouth, and Playing Place” Read at City A.M. ↗
The outlets differ on the number of guilty pleas: City A.M. reports 24 charges, while the Guardian reports 18. Both say 17 concerned illegal discharges and one concerned failing to take remedial measures after a pumping station failure. City A.M.RC “pleaded guilty to 24 environmental charges” Read at City A.M. ↗ The GuardianLC “The company pleaded guilty to 18 charges, 17 for illegal water discharge activities” Read at The Guardian ↗ The Guardian describes an incident in August 2019 when untreated sewage came through Polperro harbour wall on a bank holiday weekend, and 231 illegal discharges at Harlyn between 2016 and 2021. The GuardianLC “Between January 2016 and July 2021, there were 231 illegal sewage discharges at Harlyn” Read at The Guardian ↗ District Judge Jo Matson called the offences "horrendous" and said pollution by water companies would not be tolerated. City A.M.RC “incidents of pollution by water companies will not be tolerated and must be taken very seriously by these courts” Read at City A.M. ↗ The GuardianLC “Matson described the offences as “horrendous, very significant incidents of pollution”” Read at The Guardian ↗
According to the Guardian, the judge found the company had tried to minimise its role rather than show remorse; City A.M. reports the judge took account of changes made since, saying "only time will tell" if they work. The GuardianLC “the judge found that SWW had tried to minimise its role in the offending rather than being remorseful and accepting full responsibility” Read at The Guardian ↗ City A.M.RC “Only time will tell if those changes are successful, I certainly hope that will be the case” Read at City A.M. ↗ South West Water apologised, calling the matters historic and saying most charges concerned overflows in storm conditions. It said it is investing £760m and has cut spills by 17% in a year. City A.M.RC “We apologise for what happened in the past.” Read at City A.M. ↗ The GuardianLC “We’re investing £760m to tackle storm overflows and have reduced spills by 17% in the last year alone” Read at The Guardian ↗ The Environment Agency's Clarissa Newell said the agency hopes the record fine will lead to a new approach at the company. City A.M.RC “We hope this record fine will influence a new approach for South West Water” Read at City A.M. ↗
Environment secretary Angela Eagle said the company repeatedly broke the law, and Liberal Democrat MP Ben Maguire called the fine a slap on the wrist and urged prison sentences for those responsible. The GuardianLC “For six years, South West Water repeatedly broke the law.”“another slap on the wrist fine” Read at The Guardian ↗ Six further charges over Holywell sewage pumping station are to be considered at a later date. The company must pay within 56 days, and the Guardian reports costs of £329,993. City A.M.RC “The judge ordered South West Water to pay the fine in full within 56 days of the ruling.” Read at City A.M. ↗ The GuardianLC “The water company was ordered to pay £329,993 costs.” Read at The Guardian ↗
Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on.
Left1 outlet
- Framing
- Detailed account of the harm and failures, with the judge's criticism of the company and political reaction, including the government's water overhaul and calls for tougher penalties.
- Emphasis
- Damage to bathing spots and habitats, the 10-hour response delay, the judge's finding of minimisation, Maguire's criticism.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Does not report the judge's comment about taking changes since into account.
- Charged language
- “rotten executives”“slap on the wrist”
- For example
-
“The judge repeatedly found the company’s conduct amounted to reckless failures in management systems and response to known risks.” — The Guardian
Centre2 outlets
- Framing
- Short headline and lede stressing the size of the fine and the scenic locations affected.
- Emphasis
- Scale: almost £8m, hundreds of spillages, six years.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Gives little detail on the charges, judge's remarks or reactions.
- Charged language
- “beauty spots”
- For example
-
“South West Water (SWW) has been fined almost £8m for hundreds of sewage spillages across Devon and Cornwall over a six-year period.” — Sky News
Right1 outlet
- Framing
- Business-style report leading with the fine and the judge's word 'horrendous', giving space to the company's statement and the Environment Agency.
- Emphasis
- Judge's remarks including recognition of changes made since, and the company's investment figures.
- Leaves out or plays down
- Omits the judge's finding that the company tried to minimise its role, the political reaction and the costs order.
- Charged language
- “horrendous”“hit with”
- For example
-
“I have also taken into account the changes that SWW have made since then.” — City A.M.
What every side reports
- South West Water was fined almost £8m for pollution offences in Devon and Cornwall
- The offences covered roughly 2015 to 2021
- The judge called the incidents horrendous and said such pollution would not be tolerated
- The company apologised and cited £760m of investment
Where accounts differ
-
Number of guilty pleas
- Left
- 18 charges
- Centre
- Not stated
- Right
- 24 charges
-
Judge's view of the company's response
- Left
- Found it tried to minimise its role rather than show remorse
- Right
- Reports the judge took account of changes made since and hoped they succeed
South West Water organisation
Apologises for past events, calls them historic, says most charges concerned storm overflows and points to £760m investment and reduced spills.
“These proceedings concern historic matters between 2015 and 2021” — City A.M.
Environment Agency organisation
Led the prosecution and hopes the record fine will lead the company to prioritise the environment in spending.
“We hope this record fine will influence a new approach for South West Water.” — The Guardian
Left1 article
-
South West Water fined £8m for hundreds of sewage spills in Cornwall and Devon
Critical Emphasises environmental harm, the judge's criticism and political calls for tougher penalties.

Centre2 articles
-
Water firm fined almost £8m for sewage spillages at beauty spots
Neutral Brief report of the fine's size and the locations affected.
-

Right1 article
-
South West Water hit with £7.8m fine for ‘horrendous’ pollution offences
Neutral Straightforward report leading with the fine and judge's language, with company and agency statements.

- 29 Sep 15:09 First City A.M.RC South West Water hit with £7.8m fine for ‘horrendous’ pollution offences
- 29 Sep 15:46 +37m Sky NewsN Water firm fined almost £8m for sewage spillages at beauty spots
- 29 Sep 16:19 +1h 11m The GuardianLC South West Water fined £8m for hundreds of sewage spills in Cornwall and Devon
- 30 Sep 16:59 +25h 50m The Times of IndiaN South West Water fined £7.8 million over hundreds of sewage spills across Devon and Cornwall
Times are when each article was published, or when we first saw it if the outlet gave no time.