A prominent property tycoon is suing Britain’s largest water company for over £1m after a devastating fire, which began on the firm’s land, destroyed the grouse moor at his 300-acre country estate.
David Livesey, former CEO of the £1bn turnover property services giant Connell’s Group, alleges that United Utilities is to blame for the massive blaze that erupted in May 2020.
He claims that the company had the staff and equipment to stop the fire spreading from their Darwen Moor land to his neighbouring Lords Hall Estate, but “irresponsibly” prioritised protecting its own property.
Mr Livesey said that hundreds of acres of moorland, where years of “conservation work” had taken place to restore native wildlife, along with his valuable red grouse nests, were needlessly destroyed.
He is seeking £1,034,600 in damages at London’s High Court.
Lawyers for United Utilities, however, deny responsibility for the damage from the fire, which was ignited by two local men using a disposable barbecue on the moor during a heatwave.
They say that they “could not have done any more to stop it spreading”.
The company also says that managing the blaze ultimately lay with Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, not them.
United Utilities is the largest public water company in the UK, providing water to about seven million people in the northwest. It owns around 140,000 acres of land, most of which it uses as a water catchment area to fill its reservoirs.
Harry Wright, for Mr Livesey, told the court that the fire started on land owned by the water company at about 6.30pm on Saturday 30 May 2020 after “two local men went for a walk on Darwen Moor and lit a disposable barbecue.
“At some point, the barbecue ignited dry vegetation and this began to spread. The fire service received a 999 call from the men who lit the barbecue at 6.46pm,” he told Judge Charles Bagot KC.
The barrister said Mr Livesey “owns the freehold of 250 acres of Darwen Moor in Lancashire” as part of his 300-acre Lords Hall Estate.
“He bought the land as a conservation project and sporting estate in 2017. He wants to restore the moorland habitat.
“Before the fire, he had done a great deal of restoration and conservation work, like planting thousands of native plants, and rewetting the moor with hundreds of dams and pools. Most of this work was destroyed in the fire.”
Blaming United Utilities for the damage to the moorland on Mr Livesey’s estate, the barrister told the judge:
“The fire would not have harmed Mr Livesey’s property if United Utilities had not permitted its land to become a tinderbox; and taken basic and obvious steps to prevent the fire from spreading.
“Not for the first time, United Utilities behaved irresponsibly. This resulted in the destruction of some 630 acres in a Site of Special Scientific Interest. This should never have happened.
“United Utilities had extensive if not total control over fire risks on its land, so it was an ‘occupier’ on clear and binding authority. The notion that it had no duty in relation to fire risk is ridiculous.
“It did nothing to prevent the fire from spreading onto Mr Livesey’s land. Despite the wealth of firefighting capabilities which it and its contractors had, it created not a single firebreak which would have protected his land; and undertook no firefighting on the north flank of the fire, which spread to Mr Livesey’s land.
“Rather than taking responsibility for this, United Utilities asserts ad nauseam, and in vague and sweeping terms, that the fire service was ‘in control’ of the response to the fire, apparently in the belief that this immunises United Utilities from any liability.
“This is wrong. United Utilities had extensive firefighting resources which it could and should have deployed to protect Mr Livesey’s land, as well as its own. It failed to do so.
“It cannot blame this on the fire service, because the fire service did not force United Utilities to breach its duty to Mr Livesey. The reality is that, one way or another, United Utilities chose to protect its own property, not Mr Livesey’s. It must live with the consequences of its actions.”
In an impact statement given to Blackburn local council about he “traumatic” fire Mr Livesey says that , “in all, 630 acres of SSSI moorland was ravaged by the fire,” adding that “millions of small animals, mammals, invertebrates, frogs etc… perished,” as well as 300 red grouse nests / broods, “probably containing over 1,200 young,” which had “a significant financial value, as breeding stock for future years.”
But for United Utilities, barrister Brooke Lyne denied that company had done anything wrong.
She said: “United Utilities is a utilities company. The Darwen Moor is part of the water catchment land for reservoirs at Entwistle and Wayoh.
“It is David Livesey’s case that United Utilities Water Limited is liable in negligence for various actions / omissions before and during the fire to prevent it from occurring and then spreading to his land.
“The defendant’s primary case is straightforward: it was not an occupier of the Darwen Moor….All relevant areas of the Darwen Moor were subject to agricultural tenancies.”
Setting out alternative defences, she went on: “It is common ground that the defendant did not construct a north western fire break or hard edge in the location where the claimant says one should have been constructed.
“The claimant…says that the defendant wrongly diverted its resources to creating the ‘Constructed Firebreaks’ to protect its own land, which were unnecessary.
“The defendant’s position is that it was not possible or safe for the defendant to construct the north western firebreak on 30 May 2020 [and] the location of firebreaks was a decision taken by Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, not the defendant.
“Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service were in control of the fire response before the defendant’s personnel arrived. The defendant’s personnel provided assistance, but it was Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service that decided how and where resources should be deployed. Steps taken by the defendant’s staff were at the direction of Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service.
“After the fire broke out on 30 May 2020, the defendant’s employees…took all reasonable steps to respond to the fire.
“As part of his case, the claimant alleges that the defendant failed to take the fire mitigation steps to prevent fires being started on its land.
“Some of the fire mitigation steps required by the claimant are unrealistic, in particular, the proposal that the defendant should have ‘required any visitors formally to agree that they would not light fires’.
“The Darwen Moor is a substantial area of moorland with hundreds of public rights of way running through it – the idea that the defendant could require every member of public to enter into an agreement of this sort, particularly during a pandemic, is absurd.
“There can be no real dispute that the defendant did take reasonable steps to mitigate the risks of fire on land that it owned.”
The two Darwen men who lit the barbeque which caused the blaze, Jack Birtwistle and Henry Clark, both 25 at the time, were given a conditional caution at Blackburn Magistrates Court and ordered to carry out 150 hours of work to help restore the fire damage to the moor, including removing burnt fencing and footbridges, assisting dry stone wall repairs and planting species of rare plants.
Fire crews spent seven days tackling the fire, which spanned three miles.
The High Court case continues.