Holly
Smith - 27-Dec-2006 - On 22 December 2006 Esterchem
Limited based in Leek pleaded guilty at Stoke
on Trent Magistrates’ Court to one charge relating
to polluting the Leek Brook.
The charge was brought by the
Environment Agency under Section 85 of the Water
Resources Act 1991. The company was fined £2,500,
ordered to pay £2,000 towards the prosecution
costs and ordered to pay the £1,915 cost
of the clean-up on the Leek Brook.
For the Environment Agency,
Nicholas Cole told the court that on the 12 July
2005 the Environment Agency received reports of
large numbers of dead fish floating on the surface
of the water in the Leek Brook, near to the confluence
with the River Churnet. Local builders working
on a site off Cheddleton Road in Leek, reported
the dead fish to the Environment Agency.
The builders had noticed a chemical
smell, described as being similar to car windscreen
wash, which was coming from the water where the
fish were in distress.
Environment Agency officers
investigated and found more than 400 dead fish.
The distinctive chemical smell
coming from the water was traced to a series of
3 flap-valves located off Brooklands Way at Leekbrook
Industrial Estate. The smell was traced to Esterchem
Ltd which is located off Brooklands Way, on the
Leekbrook Industrial Estate.
The Environment Agency officers
inspected the site and discovered a strong smell
of chemicals, similar to that in Leek Brook. Further
inspections were made of the ‘batch-reacting’
area, and in particular the sump that served that
area.
A meeting was later arranged
at Esterchem Ltd, during which the Managing Director,
Douglas Bray, said that a CCTV inspection had
revealed a corroded gasket to a flange which had
allowed chemicals to leak into a surface water
drain which then led to the Leek Brook.
Mr. Cole told the Court that
the Environment Agency considered the most likely
cause of the fish deaths was the pollution from
the Esterchem site, however it was impossible
to prove the extent or effect of the pollution.
He said the company had failed to inspect and
maintain its site sufficiently to prevent this
discharge into the Brook.
In mitigation, Bernard Thorogoad,
said that the discharge from the site had been
small and the fish deaths were not connected with
this pollutant. He accepted that the ester which
had leaked was polluting material which affected
the quality of the water.
He said the company has a good
environmental and health and safety record. It
had been let down by builders who had not properly
capped an old surface water drain. The company
agreed to pay the clean-up costs to prevent these
costs being borne by the public purse.
Passing sentence, District Judge
Richards described Leek Brook as a pleasant waterway
in an attractive part of Britain. He said this
was a minor breach by a responsibly run company
and so he would deal with the company comparatively
leniently. He said it was fortunate that there
had been an immediate clean-up.
