21/10/2005 - On Monday 17 October 2005 Quiltex Limited pleaded guilty at Ilkeston Magistrates to a charge of causing polluting matter, namely heating oil, to enter Pennytown Ponds in Somercotes.

The charge was brought by the Environment Agency under Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991. The company was fined £5000 and ordered to pay costs of £1070.25

Speaking after the case, an Environment Agency spokesman said: ‘This incident is a perfect example of how carelessness can lead to a serious pollution. People dealing with materials which could pose a threat to the environment have a responsibility to ensure they are handled correctly – failure to do so poses a real threat to the environment and we will not hesitate to take action against those responsible.’

For the Environment Agency, Patrick Howell told the court that on 9 April 2005, the Environment Agency received a report of oil entering Pennytown ponds in Somercotes. A further report was received on 10 April 2005.

On 11 April 2005 Environment Agency officer attended the pond and saw both a layer of oil around the margins of the pond and a swan which appeared to be contaminated with oil.

The officer traced the oil back to the site of Quiltex Limited, where a site inspection indicated there had been an oil spill. Staff from the Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water and a private contractor worked over the next few days to remove the oil from the pond using absorbent materials and a vacuum tanker.

Investigations indicated that on 8 April 2005 gas oil was delivered to Quiltex Limited. A representative of the company did not supervise the delivery. On 10 April 2005 Quiltex employees noticed a problem with the heating oil tank at the site and called in the works engineer. Action was taken to stop a leak and clean up the oil which had spilt. Oil had escaped via a damaged tap on the tank, leading to a leak of approximately 2000 litres of oil.

In mitigation, Mr Lewis, Director of Quiltex, said that the offence was not foreseeable. The company believed the leak was due to the delivery driver standing on the pipe and rupturing it. He also pointed out that action was taken by the company to deal with the situation as soon as the leak was discovered and that work had been undertaken to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.