Airport washing de-icer into brook

First published in Local News

SOUTHEND Airport has been discharging de-icer into Prittle Brook for more than two years, the Echo can reveal.

The airport’s owner, the Stobart Group, has applied for a permit from the Environment Agency to discharge up to 79,188 gallons (360 cubic metres) of “trade effluent consisting of deicer”

into the waterway every day.

The company, which took over the airport in 2008, told the Echo the application is for surface water running off in the winter, but wildlife groups are outraged the practice has been going on.

John Fuller, coordinator of the South East Essex Friends of the Earth, said: “We are very concerned about this in case it has implications on human health. We understand the Environment Agency deems it within tolerable limits, but I think that will be little reassurance to the fishermen who harvest shellfish in the River Roach.

“The fact that it has been going on for two years shows the controls on the airport are woefully inadequate.”

Paul Gilson, chairman of Leigh and Southend Fishermen’s Association, which owns a stretch of shellfish beds in the River Roach, said shellfish health checks only detected e-coli, so other pollutants could be missed.

He said: “I’ve seen the application and I’m extremely concerned about it. This is serious.

Some pollutants are not too bad, but when you are talking about the sheer volume they want permission for, and that traffic at the airport is only increasing, it could do a lot of harm.”

Prittle Brook runs through West Wood in Hadleigh, Belfairs Park in Leigh, and Priory Park in Southend, past the airport and into the River Roach at Purdeys Way, Rochford.

Neal Warren, chairman of the Castle Point Wildlife Group, which manages West Wood, said: “They will dilute it, I’m sure, but whatever you do it is going to harm the natural environment.

“I’m in shock to be honest that the Environment Agency would even contemplate allowing that volume to be put in the watercourse.

“There is so much being done to clean the brook and improve the water quality. It just seems like we are taking a big step back.”

The airport’s owners claim the Environment Agency has monitored the situation and found little impact on the area.

A spokeswoman from the airport said: “This permit deals with the run-off of surface water from the runway, which during the winter months may contain traces of de-icing chemicals used on the runway to maintain safe operations.

“The permit allows a cumulative 360 cubic metres per day to be run off into Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook.

“As part of an agreed trial with the Environment Agency, Southend Airport has been carrying out these procedures for the past two winters.

“Extensive ecological monitoring has been taking place during this period, and the Environment Agency reports little or no impact on water courses and wildlife.”

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:48am Tue 6 May 14

Steve H says...

So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water.

If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?
So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water. If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem? Steve H
  • Score: -22

8:49am Tue 6 May 14

Sensible Man says...

I am generally a supporter of the airport and have used it many times for flights. However, I find this article rather disappointing - to say the least. Surely there must be a more professional and socially responsible way of getting rid of this stuff. Is the best they can do really just to wash it into a local brook? Does anyone really know the possible long-term effects?

And does anyone really trust the Environment Agency to look after our interests - I certainly don't !!

Sort it out Southend Airport!! Come up with some ideas to get rid of this stuff in a better and more acceptable way!! What do other airports do - specifically those that do not have a convenient river or brook handy?
I am generally a supporter of the airport and have used it many times for flights. However, I find this article rather disappointing - to say the least. Surely there must be a more professional and socially responsible way of getting rid of this stuff. Is the best they can do really just to wash it into a local brook? Does anyone really know the possible long-term effects? And does anyone really trust the Environment Agency to look after our interests - I certainly don't !! Sort it out Southend Airport!! Come up with some ideas to get rid of this stuff in a better and more acceptable way!! What do other airports do - specifically those that do not have a convenient river or brook handy? Sensible Man
  • Score: 16

8:51am Tue 6 May 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

Steve H wrote:
So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water.

If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?
Because "airport operating within guidelines set down by environment agency" isn't nearly reactionary enough for the tabloids.

Who to trust in this situation: John Fuller, a man with a history of misreporting facts...

..Or the environment agency, who actually know what they are doing.
[quote][p][bold]Steve H[/bold] wrote: So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water. If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?[/p][/quote]Because "airport operating within guidelines set down by environment agency" isn't nearly reactionary enough for the tabloids. Who to trust in this situation: John Fuller, a man with a history of misreporting facts... ..Or the environment agency, who actually know what they are doing. disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: -6

8:52am Tue 6 May 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

Steve H wrote:
So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water.

If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?
Because "airport operating within guidelines set down by environment agency" isn't nearly reactionary enough for the tabloids.

Who to trust in this situation: John Fuller, a man with a history of misreporting facts...

..Or the environment agency, who actually know what they are doing.
[quote][p][bold]Steve H[/bold] wrote: So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water. If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?[/p][/quote]Because "airport operating within guidelines set down by environment agency" isn't nearly reactionary enough for the tabloids. Who to trust in this situation: John Fuller, a man with a history of misreporting facts... ..Or the environment agency, who actually know what they are doing. disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: -5

9:06am Tue 6 May 14

howroyd says...

Who is going to monitor just how much of these chemicals are washed off into the brook and how do we know its only going to be small amounts. for all we know once they get the go ahead and more aircraft use the airport it could be huge. They have spent thousands of pounds clearing and cleaning the brook in Belfairs Park because of the new Wildlife Centre, what is the point of all that if they are going to allow all this pollution to be washed in it. Who knows what damage will be done to the wildlife there.
Who is going to monitor just how much of these chemicals are washed off into the brook and how do we know its only going to be small amounts. for all we know once they get the go ahead and more aircraft use the airport it could be huge. They have spent thousands of pounds clearing and cleaning the brook in Belfairs Park because of the new Wildlife Centre, what is the point of all that if they are going to allow all this pollution to be washed in it. Who knows what damage will be done to the wildlife there. howroyd
  • Score: 5

9:12am Tue 6 May 14

howroyd says...

Where is the application on the Environment Agency website where they are welcoming people's views. I can't find it. It says people can comment up until 20th May how can we comment if we can't find the application.
Where is the application on the Environment Agency website where they are welcoming people's views. I can't find it. It says people can comment up until 20th May how can we comment if we can't find the application. howroyd
  • Score: 1

9:48am Tue 6 May 14

w-jback says...

howroyd wrote:
Who is going to monitor just how much of these chemicals are washed off into the brook and how do we know its only going to be small amounts. for all we know once they get the go ahead and more aircraft use the airport it could be huge. They have spent thousands of pounds clearing and cleaning the brook in Belfairs Park because of the new Wildlife Centre, what is the point of all that if they are going to allow all this pollution to be washed in it. Who knows what damage will be done to the wildlife there.
How is the water from the brook at Rochford going to flow up and over the weir at Cherry Orchard Way to pollute the brook further upstream?

Who regulates the deicer used every winter by hundreds of thousands of car owners that must just wash into the local brooks and rivers?
[quote][p][bold]howroyd[/bold] wrote: Who is going to monitor just how much of these chemicals are washed off into the brook and how do we know its only going to be small amounts. for all we know once they get the go ahead and more aircraft use the airport it could be huge. They have spent thousands of pounds clearing and cleaning the brook in Belfairs Park because of the new Wildlife Centre, what is the point of all that if they are going to allow all this pollution to be washed in it. Who knows what damage will be done to the wildlife there.[/p][/quote]How is the water from the brook at Rochford going to flow up and over the weir at Cherry Orchard Way to pollute the brook further upstream? Who regulates the deicer used every winter by hundreds of thousands of car owners that must just wash into the local brooks and rivers? w-jback
  • Score: -3

9:57am Tue 6 May 14

w-jback says...

w-jback wrote:
howroyd wrote:
Who is going to monitor just how much of these chemicals are washed off into the brook and how do we know its only going to be small amounts. for all we know once they get the go ahead and more aircraft use the airport it could be huge. They have spent thousands of pounds clearing and cleaning the brook in Belfairs Park because of the new Wildlife Centre, what is the point of all that if they are going to allow all this pollution to be washed in it. Who knows what damage will be done to the wildlife there.
How is the water from the brook at Rochford going to flow up and over the weir at Cherry Orchard Way to pollute the brook further upstream?

Who regulates the deicer used every winter by hundreds of thousands of car owners that must just wash into the local brooks and rivers?
Got my Brooks mixed up - so more to the point how does the airport affect Prittle brook? Surely Eastwood Brook would be more affected as it runs onto the airport, Prittle Brook appears to stop at Warners Bridge.
[quote][p][bold]w-jback[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]howroyd[/bold] wrote: Who is going to monitor just how much of these chemicals are washed off into the brook and how do we know its only going to be small amounts. for all we know once they get the go ahead and more aircraft use the airport it could be huge. They have spent thousands of pounds clearing and cleaning the brook in Belfairs Park because of the new Wildlife Centre, what is the point of all that if they are going to allow all this pollution to be washed in it. Who knows what damage will be done to the wildlife there.[/p][/quote]How is the water from the brook at Rochford going to flow up and over the weir at Cherry Orchard Way to pollute the brook further upstream? Who regulates the deicer used every winter by hundreds of thousands of car owners that must just wash into the local brooks and rivers?[/p][/quote]Got my Brooks mixed up - so more to the point how does the airport affect Prittle brook? Surely Eastwood Brook would be more affected as it runs onto the airport, Prittle Brook appears to stop at Warners Bridge. w-jback
  • Score: 2

10:37am Tue 6 May 14

trustthepilot says...

Not unlike the decades of air pollution that we suffered from the originated at Corytown. (and leaded petrol).
In the 1980s Switzerland forced Zurich Airport to build de-icing bays - basically a drainage system that would recycle de icing fluids.
We taxied the aircraft to the specific stands...de- iced and then taxied for take off...All they consisted of were a series of drains, sumps filtering and pumping systems.
Not unlike the decades of air pollution that we suffered from the originated at Corytown. (and leaded petrol). In the 1980s Switzerland forced Zurich Airport to build de-icing bays - basically a drainage system that would recycle de icing fluids. We taxied the aircraft to the specific stands...de- iced and then taxied for take off...All they consisted of were a series of drains, sumps filtering and pumping systems. trustthepilot
  • Score: 3

11:10am Tue 6 May 14

jayman says...

for a start. The EA are not necessarily to be trusted on this issue and many other issues especially where large corporate involvement can play an influence.

if the de-icier is glycol-based then in will most definitely cause harm to the environment given the slow flow of the river roach (prittle brook probably not being the discharge outlet).

If the environment agency have issued a licence to discharge glycol-based chemicals then they have in effect sanctioned the release of untreated chemicals which flow into a SSSI site (river roach).

i note with interest that this story lacks the usual echo inclusion of a picture of the airport terminal building, complete with airport logo...
for a start. The EA are not necessarily to be trusted on this issue and many other issues especially where large corporate involvement can play an influence. if the de-icier is glycol-based then in will most definitely cause harm to the environment given the slow flow of the river roach (prittle brook probably not being the discharge outlet). If the environment agency have issued a licence to discharge glycol-based chemicals then they have in effect sanctioned the release of untreated chemicals which flow into a SSSI site (river roach). i note with interest that this story lacks the usual echo inclusion of a picture of the airport terminal building, complete with airport logo... jayman
  • Score: 13

11:21am Tue 6 May 14

Nebs says...

jayman wrote:
for a start. The EA are not necessarily to be trusted on this issue and many other issues especially where large corporate involvement can play an influence.

if the de-icier is glycol-based then in will most definitely cause harm to the environment given the slow flow of the river roach (prittle brook probably not being the discharge outlet).

If the environment agency have issued a licence to discharge glycol-based chemicals then they have in effect sanctioned the release of untreated chemicals which flow into a SSSI site (river roach).

i note with interest that this story lacks the usual echo inclusion of a picture of the airport terminal building, complete with airport logo...
Maybe the Echo is starting to realise that there are a few unanswered questions.
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: for a start. The EA are not necessarily to be trusted on this issue and many other issues especially where large corporate involvement can play an influence. if the de-icier is glycol-based then in will most definitely cause harm to the environment given the slow flow of the river roach (prittle brook probably not being the discharge outlet). If the environment agency have issued a licence to discharge glycol-based chemicals then they have in effect sanctioned the release of untreated chemicals which flow into a SSSI site (river roach). i note with interest that this story lacks the usual echo inclusion of a picture of the airport terminal building, complete with airport logo...[/p][/quote]Maybe the Echo is starting to realise that there are a few unanswered questions. Nebs
  • Score: 10

12:46pm Tue 6 May 14

Ian P says...

"The airport’s owner, the Stobart Group, has applied for a permit from the Environment Agency to discharge up to 79,188 gallons (360 cubic metres) of “trade effluent consisting of deicer” into the waterway every day". Come on Echo even you can see that statement is wrong, especially as a couple of sentances later you clearly state, "The company, which took over the airport in 2008, told the Echo the application is for surface water running off in the winter". So the application is actually for run off which may contain some traces of deicer during the winter months, falling far short of 79,188 gallons of deicer per day, quoted at the start of the article.
"The airport’s owner, the Stobart Group, has applied for a permit from the Environment Agency to discharge up to 79,188 gallons (360 cubic metres) of “trade effluent consisting of deicer” into the waterway every day". Come on Echo even you can see that statement is wrong, especially as a couple of sentances later you clearly state, "The company, which took over the airport in 2008, told the Echo the application is for surface water running off in the winter". So the application is actually for run off which may contain some traces of deicer during the winter months, falling far short of 79,188 gallons of deicer per day, quoted at the start of the article. Ian P
  • Score: -6

1:48pm Tue 6 May 14

Biker One says...

Steve H wrote:
So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water.

If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?
It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway!
[quote][p][bold]Steve H[/bold] wrote: So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water. If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?[/p][/quote]It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway! Biker One
  • Score: 3

2:14pm Tue 6 May 14

emcee says...

As with any business, Stobart MUST apply for a permit for ANY run off into the watercourse. It just so happens that this run off MAY contain traces of de-icer during the winter.
How much oil, fuel and other rubbish, including de-icer during the winter, gets run off from our local roads every year? Probably a whole lot more.
This article is yet more sensationalist drivel from the Echo written in such a way to cause reaction amongst those who are too dim to read past the first paragraph and, therefore, see the whole picture.
As with any business, Stobart MUST apply for a permit for ANY run off into the watercourse. It just so happens that this run off MAY contain traces of de-icer during the winter. How much oil, fuel and other rubbish, including de-icer during the winter, gets run off from our local roads every year? Probably a whole lot more. This article is yet more sensationalist drivel from the Echo written in such a way to cause reaction amongst those who are too dim to read past the first paragraph and, therefore, see the whole picture. emcee
  • Score: -5

2:37pm Tue 6 May 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

Biker One wrote:
Steve H wrote:
So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water.

If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?
It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway!
Nope its to deice the runway, deicing of aircraft usually runs into tanks set beneath the stand. Look at a satellite picture of the airport and where the stands are in relation to the waterways, they would have to make a serious effort to get deicer from the stands to the brook.

Jayman
"For a start, the EA are not to be trusted......"

And thats based on .....?
[quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve H[/bold] wrote: So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water. If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?[/p][/quote]It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway![/p][/quote]Nope its to deice the runway, deicing of aircraft usually runs into tanks set beneath the stand. Look at a satellite picture of the airport and where the stands are in relation to the waterways, they would have to make a serious effort to get deicer from the stands to the brook. Jayman "For a start, the EA are not to be trusted......" And thats based on .....? disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: 0

4:20pm Tue 6 May 14

jayman says...

disenfranchisedpast wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Steve H wrote:
So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water.

If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?
It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway!
Nope its to deice the runway, deicing of aircraft usually runs into tanks set beneath the stand. Look at a satellite picture of the airport and where the stands are in relation to the waterways, they would have to make a serious effort to get deicer from the stands to the brook.

Jayman
"For a start, the EA are not to be trusted......"

And thats based on .....?
Quote me correctly and I might answer you
[quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve H[/bold] wrote: So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water. If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?[/p][/quote]It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway![/p][/quote]Nope its to deice the runway, deicing of aircraft usually runs into tanks set beneath the stand. Look at a satellite picture of the airport and where the stands are in relation to the waterways, they would have to make a serious effort to get deicer from the stands to the brook. Jayman "For a start, the EA are not to be trusted......" And thats based on .....?[/p][/quote]Quote me correctly and I might answer you jayman
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Tue 6 May 14

sesibollox says...

No one likes frozen fish...
No one likes frozen fish... sesibollox
  • Score: 0

7:06pm Tue 6 May 14

Steve H says...

How has my comment gone from 14 thumbs up at 5pm to 15 thumbs down at 7pm?

Is there a way of manipulating the vote?
How has my comment gone from 14 thumbs up at 5pm to 15 thumbs down at 7pm? Is there a way of manipulating the vote? Steve H
  • Score: -4

7:07pm Tue 6 May 14

Steve H says...

Biker One wrote:
Steve H wrote:
So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water.

If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?
It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway!
Have you read the article?
[quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve H[/bold] wrote: So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water. If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?[/p][/quote]It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway![/p][/quote]Have you read the article? Steve H
  • Score: 1

8:05pm Tue 6 May 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Steve H wrote:
So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water.

If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?
It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway!
Nope its to deice the runway, deicing of aircraft usually runs into tanks set beneath the stand. Look at a satellite picture of the airport and where the stands are in relation to the waterways, they would have to make a serious effort to get deicer from the stands to the brook.

Jayman
"For a start, the EA are not to be trusted......"

And thats based on .....?
Quote me correctly and I might answer you
So based on nothing but a paranoid fantasy then
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve H[/bold] wrote: So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water. If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?[/p][/quote]It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway![/p][/quote]Nope its to deice the runway, deicing of aircraft usually runs into tanks set beneath the stand. Look at a satellite picture of the airport and where the stands are in relation to the waterways, they would have to make a serious effort to get deicer from the stands to the brook. Jayman "For a start, the EA are not to be trusted......" And thats based on .....?[/p][/quote]Quote me correctly and I might answer you[/p][/quote]So based on nothing but a paranoid fantasy then disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: -5

8:30pm Tue 6 May 14

maxell says...

I challenge the echo or airport to produce documented evidence that this stuff has been going into the brookes over the time stated, I was informed by the echo that stories will not be published without hard evidence so it should be easy to produce, independent water tests say different. I bet that nothing has been put into the brooks , its all about a false sence of security before they really deposit de icer, of course there are no problems there is no de icer yet ( starnge how the reporter departed the echo on friday) 3 days prior publication.
I challenge the echo or airport to produce documented evidence that this stuff has been going into the brookes over the time stated, I was informed by the echo that stories will not be published without hard evidence so it should be easy to produce, independent water tests say different. I bet that nothing has been put into the brooks , its all about a false sence of security before they really deposit de icer, of course there are no problems there is no de icer yet ( starnge how the reporter departed the echo on friday) 3 days prior publication. maxell
  • Score: -12

8:38pm Tue 6 May 14

costa-del-blowfly says...

This clearly requires further investigation. Key facts such as; the composition of this 'effluent runoff' from the runway and how this has (if at all) impacted the water quality of the brook needs to be understood (the later can easily be determined independently).

If this runoff is having a negative impact beyond the accepted tolerance, then the airport needs to address this.
This clearly requires further investigation. Key facts such as; the composition of this 'effluent runoff' from the runway and how this has (if at all) impacted the water quality of the brook needs to be understood (the later can easily be determined independently). If this runoff is having a negative impact beyond the accepted tolerance, then the airport needs to address this. costa-del-blowfly
  • Score: 1

9:01pm Tue 6 May 14

Nebs says...

howroyd wrote:
Where is the application on the Environment Agency website where they are welcoming people's views. I can't find it. It says people can comment up until 20th May how can we comment if we can't find the application.
I phoned the EA this morning to ask why it was not on their website, and how making someone drive 100 miles to view the application was in accordance with their stated objective of giving people more power over what happens in their neighbourhood. They promised to phone back. They didn't.

I also checked the airport website, but no mention of it on there either.
[quote][p][bold]howroyd[/bold] wrote: Where is the application on the Environment Agency website where they are welcoming people's views. I can't find it. It says people can comment up until 20th May how can we comment if we can't find the application.[/p][/quote]I phoned the EA this morning to ask why it was not on their website, and how making someone drive 100 miles to view the application was in accordance with their stated objective of giving people more power over what happens in their neighbourhood. They promised to phone back. They didn't. I also checked the airport website, but no mention of it on there either. Nebs
  • Score: -1

9:40pm Tue 6 May 14

jayman says...

disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Steve H wrote:
So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water.

If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?
It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway!
Nope its to deice the runway, deicing of aircraft usually runs into tanks set beneath the stand. Look at a satellite picture of the airport and where the stands are in relation to the waterways, they would have to make a serious effort to get deicer from the stands to the brook.

Jayman
"For a start, the EA are not to be trusted......"

And thats based on .....?
Quote me correctly and I might answer you
So based on nothing but a paranoid fantasy then
I refer you back to my original comment.

"for a start. The EA are not necessarily to be trusted on this issue and many other issues especially where large corporate involvement can play an influence."
[quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve H[/bold] wrote: So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water. If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?[/p][/quote]It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway![/p][/quote]Nope its to deice the runway, deicing of aircraft usually runs into tanks set beneath the stand. Look at a satellite picture of the airport and where the stands are in relation to the waterways, they would have to make a serious effort to get deicer from the stands to the brook. Jayman "For a start, the EA are not to be trusted......" And thats based on .....?[/p][/quote]Quote me correctly and I might answer you[/p][/quote]So based on nothing but a paranoid fantasy then[/p][/quote]I refer you back to my original comment. "for a start. The EA are not necessarily to be trusted on this issue and many other issues especially where large corporate involvement can play an influence." jayman
  • Score: 5

10:29pm Tue 6 May 14

LexyGirl says...

What about the wildlife? nobody cares about them do they ;((
What about the wildlife? nobody cares about them do they ;(( LexyGirl
  • Score: 11

11:31pm Tue 6 May 14

emcee says...

Steve H wrote:
How has my comment gone from 14 thumbs up at 5pm to 15 thumbs down at 7pm?

Is there a way of manipulating the vote?
The voting system is a farce and should be ignored. After all, all that needs to be done is to delete the cookies, reload page and have another vote.
In the case of any "airport" based articles you can rest assured that pro airport commenters will get massive minus figures yet those who are anti aiport will always achieve a positive. Go figure that one out and come back with your own conclusions as to which side of the fence the children come from.
[quote][p][bold]Steve H[/bold] wrote: How has my comment gone from 14 thumbs up at 5pm to 15 thumbs down at 7pm? Is there a way of manipulating the vote?[/p][/quote]The voting system is a farce and should be ignored. After all, all that needs to be done is to delete the cookies, reload page and have another vote. In the case of any "airport" based articles you can rest assured that pro airport commenters will get massive minus figures yet those who are anti aiport will always achieve a positive. Go figure that one out and come back with your own conclusions as to which side of the fence the children come from. emcee
  • Score: -3

12:54am Wed 7 May 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
jayman wrote:
disenfranchisedpast wrote:
Biker One wrote:
Steve H wrote:
So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water.

If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?
It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway!
Nope its to deice the runway, deicing of aircraft usually runs into tanks set beneath the stand. Look at a satellite picture of the airport and where the stands are in relation to the waterways, they would have to make a serious effort to get deicer from the stands to the brook.

Jayman
"For a start, the EA are not to be trusted......"

And thats based on .....?
Quote me correctly and I might answer you
So based on nothing but a paranoid fantasy then
I refer you back to my original comment.

"for a start. The EA are not necessarily to be trusted on this issue and many other issues especially where large corporate involvement can play an influence."
And I see nothing in the comment to back up that allegation
[quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jayman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]disenfranchisedpast[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Biker One[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steve H[/bold] wrote: So the Airport isn't opening up a tap and pouring chemicals into the brook as the headline leads you to imagine, but has permission and has notified the Environment Agency that small quantities of the chemical is uses to de ice the runway may wash off into the brook with surface water. If the EA is OK with this then what is the problem?[/p][/quote]It's to de-ice the aircraft, not the runway![/p][/quote]Nope its to deice the runway, deicing of aircraft usually runs into tanks set beneath the stand. Look at a satellite picture of the airport and where the stands are in relation to the waterways, they would have to make a serious effort to get deicer from the stands to the brook. Jayman "For a start, the EA are not to be trusted......" And thats based on .....?[/p][/quote]Quote me correctly and I might answer you[/p][/quote]So based on nothing but a paranoid fantasy then[/p][/quote]I refer you back to my original comment. "for a start. The EA are not necessarily to be trusted on this issue and many other issues especially where large corporate involvement can play an influence."[/p][/quote]And I see nothing in the comment to back up that allegation disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: -2

8:58am Wed 7 May 14

Broadwaywatch says...

Has the closing of pubic footpath 36 that runs alongside Eastwood book from Eastwood to Rochford got anything to do with this?
Just a question...no reason for a rude abusive answer but a polite one would be appreciated if any one has an answer or comment to make regarding my question.
Has the closing of pubic footpath 36 that runs alongside Eastwood book from Eastwood to Rochford got anything to do with this? Just a question...no reason for a rude abusive answer but a polite one would be appreciated if any one has an answer or comment to make regarding my question. Broadwaywatch
  • Score: 6

9:52am Wed 7 May 14

maxell says...

footpath 36 has a public enquiry pending
footpath 36 has a public enquiry pending maxell
  • Score: -1

12:53pm Wed 7 May 14

poortaxpayer says...

To the tens of thousands of car owners in Southend. Where do you think your collective thousands and thousands of litres of deicer goes after you have sprayed your car windows. Does it just vanish or does it run off into the watercourses and drains??
To the tens of thousands of car owners in Southend. Where do you think your collective thousands and thousands of litres of deicer goes after you have sprayed your car windows. Does it just vanish or does it run off into the watercourses and drains?? poortaxpayer
  • Score: 4

4:21pm Wed 7 May 14

Broadwaywatch says...

maxell wrote:
footpath 36 has a public enquiry pending
Thank you for that.....do you know the reason why?
[quote][p][bold]maxell[/bold] wrote: footpath 36 has a public enquiry pending[/p][/quote]Thank you for that.....do you know the reason why? Broadwaywatch
  • Score: -1

8:18pm Wed 7 May 14

Nebs says...

Nebs wrote:
howroyd wrote:
Where is the application on the Environment Agency website where they are welcoming people's views. I can't find it. It says people can comment up until 20th May how can we comment if we can't find the application.
I phoned the EA this morning to ask why it was not on their website, and how making someone drive 100 miles to view the application was in accordance with their stated objective of giving people more power over what happens in their neighbourhood. They promised to phone back. They didn't.

I also checked the airport website, but no mention of it on there either.
The EA did phone back at 9am this morning. Gave the reason/excuse that they have moved to the gov.uk website, took my email address and promised to email the documents to me from our local (lol) office in Peterborough. Still no email from them.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]howroyd[/bold] wrote: Where is the application on the Environment Agency website where they are welcoming people's views. I can't find it. It says people can comment up until 20th May how can we comment if we can't find the application.[/p][/quote]I phoned the EA this morning to ask why it was not on their website, and how making someone drive 100 miles to view the application was in accordance with their stated objective of giving people more power over what happens in their neighbourhood. They promised to phone back. They didn't. I also checked the airport website, but no mention of it on there either.[/p][/quote]The EA did phone back at 9am this morning. Gave the reason/excuse that they have moved to the gov.uk website, took my email address and promised to email the documents to me from our local (lol) office in Peterborough. Still no email from them. Nebs
  • Score: 2

12:25am Thu 8 May 14

costa-del-blowfly says...

Nebs wrote:
Nebs wrote:
howroyd wrote:
Where is the application on the Environment Agency website where they are welcoming people's views. I can't find it. It says people can comment up until 20th May how can we comment if we can't find the application.
I phoned the EA this morning to ask why it was not on their website, and how making someone drive 100 miles to view the application was in accordance with their stated objective of giving people more power over what happens in their neighbourhood. They promised to phone back. They didn't.

I also checked the airport website, but no mention of it on there either.
The EA did phone back at 9am this morning. Gave the reason/excuse that they have moved to the gov.uk website, took my email address and promised to email the documents to me from our local (lol) office in Peterborough. Still no email from them.
The fact that they did get back to you in surely encouraging?

I have lost of how many times companies who I actually pay for a service (which provide a service which we could argue should be majority nationally owned), promise to respond to a significant issue, and never do.
[quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nebs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]howroyd[/bold] wrote: Where is the application on the Environment Agency website where they are welcoming people's views. I can't find it. It says people can comment up until 20th May how can we comment if we can't find the application.[/p][/quote]I phoned the EA this morning to ask why it was not on their website, and how making someone drive 100 miles to view the application was in accordance with their stated objective of giving people more power over what happens in their neighbourhood. They promised to phone back. They didn't. I also checked the airport website, but no mention of it on there either.[/p][/quote]The EA did phone back at 9am this morning. Gave the reason/excuse that they have moved to the gov.uk website, took my email address and promised to email the documents to me from our local (lol) office in Peterborough. Still no email from them.[/p][/quote]The fact that they did get back to you in surely encouraging? I have lost of how many times companies who I actually pay for a service (which provide a service which we could argue should be majority nationally owned), promise to respond to a significant issue, and never do. costa-del-blowfly
  • Score: 2

12:26pm Thu 8 May 14

Campbell's dad says...

On the original planning applications and the early proposals, the airport were going to build a holding and pre-treatment pond. The planning permission /applications for this have been on & off too many times. But it seems that the locations was in an area where the clear up of the stuff left over after WW2 was buried. No they did not clear it up & eco dispose of in those days. So all sorts of "stuff" is likely to be buried & if, dug up as part of the pond, would be somewhat expensive & difficult to dispose of. So rather than risk having to pay to dispose of the WW2 left overs, they decided to just dump the anti-freeze into the brooks. This is why it has been going on already, as it was a temporary action while the discharge pond was approved and built.
It would not do to get ALL the things needed in place before they started commercial usage of the airport, no, of course not,
drip feed the negative bits in so no one notices,
shoot the pigeons that used to fly from the house in Eastwoodbury Lane, shoot the foxes that cannot read the signs saying it’s an airport,
allow scheduled flights during night time,
start the daytime flights earlier than any other real airport
and anything else the airport wants.
The Airport does not vote in the councillors, so we , the residents, get the chance to vote them out, that’s if you can ever get the individuals to actually say if they will vote against any airport expansion.
On the original planning applications and the early proposals, the airport were going to build a holding and pre-treatment pond. The planning permission /applications for this have been on & off too many times. But it seems that the locations was in an area where the clear up of the stuff left over after WW2 was buried. No they did not clear it up & eco dispose of in those days. So all sorts of "stuff" is likely to be buried & if, dug up as part of the pond, would be somewhat expensive & difficult to dispose of. So rather than risk having to pay to dispose of the WW2 left overs, they decided to just dump the anti-freeze into the brooks. This is why it has been going on already, as it was a temporary action while the discharge pond was approved and built. It would not do to get ALL the things needed in place before they started commercial usage of the airport, no, of course not, drip feed the negative bits in so no one notices, shoot the pigeons that used to fly from the house in Eastwoodbury Lane, shoot the foxes that cannot read the signs saying it’s an airport, allow scheduled flights during night time, start the daytime flights earlier than any other real airport and anything else the airport wants. The Airport does not vote in the councillors, so we , the residents, get the chance to vote them out, that’s if you can ever get the individuals to actually say if they will vote against any airport expansion. Campbell's dad
  • Score: 1

12:40pm Thu 8 May 14

jayman says...

here is the application.

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/publicatio
ns/ss2-6yf-environme
ntal-permit-applicat
ion-advertisement/ss
2-6yf-environmental-
permit-application-a
dvertisement.

it is interesting to note that the discharge grid references are listed as TQ 86238 89024, TQ 86863 89849, TQ 87504 89849 and TQ 87598 89254..
here is the application. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/ss2-6yf-environme ntal-permit-applicat ion-advertisement/ss 2-6yf-environmental- permit-application-a dvertisement. it is interesting to note that the discharge grid references are listed as TQ 86238 89024, TQ 86863 89849, TQ 87504 89849 and TQ 87598 89254.. jayman
  • Score: 4

1:13pm Thu 8 May 14

disenfranchisedpast says...

Campbell's dad wrote:
On the original planning applications and the early proposals, the airport were going to build a holding and pre-treatment pond. The planning permission /applications for this have been on & off too many times. But it seems that the locations was in an area where the clear up of the stuff left over after WW2 was buried. No they did not clear it up & eco dispose of in those days. So all sorts of "stuff" is likely to be buried & if, dug up as part of the pond, would be somewhat expensive & difficult to dispose of. So rather than risk having to pay to dispose of the WW2 left overs, they decided to just dump the anti-freeze into the brooks. This is why it has been going on already, as it was a temporary action while the discharge pond was approved and built.
It would not do to get ALL the things needed in place before they started commercial usage of the airport, no, of course not,
drip feed the negative bits in so no one notices,
shoot the pigeons that used to fly from the house in Eastwoodbury Lane, shoot the foxes that cannot read the signs saying it’s an airport,
allow scheduled flights during night time,
start the daytime flights earlier than any other real airport
and anything else the airport wants.
The Airport does not vote in the councillors, so we , the residents, get the chance to vote them out, that’s if you can ever get the individuals to actually say if they will vote against any airport expansion.
Oh campbells dad, Is this like your crazy "runway is made of dirt theory"

Like most airports, Southend has tanks under the aircraft stands to hold deicer runoff from deicing the aircraft.

This application is for runoff from the runway when deicing fluid is put on it, it takes literally 30 seconds of googling to find out that the airport is not "dumping antifreeze in the brooks".

Here is a good link from rochfords website that shows the "truth" of the matter

http://www.rochford.
gov.uk/sites/rochfor
d.gov.uk/files/docum
ents/files/planning_
jaap_exj016g.pdf
[quote][p][bold]Campbell's dad[/bold] wrote: On the original planning applications and the early proposals, the airport were going to build a holding and pre-treatment pond. The planning permission /applications for this have been on & off too many times. But it seems that the locations was in an area where the clear up of the stuff left over after WW2 was buried. No they did not clear it up & eco dispose of in those days. So all sorts of "stuff" is likely to be buried & if, dug up as part of the pond, would be somewhat expensive & difficult to dispose of. So rather than risk having to pay to dispose of the WW2 left overs, they decided to just dump the anti-freeze into the brooks. This is why it has been going on already, as it was a temporary action while the discharge pond was approved and built. It would not do to get ALL the things needed in place before they started commercial usage of the airport, no, of course not, drip feed the negative bits in so no one notices, shoot the pigeons that used to fly from the house in Eastwoodbury Lane, shoot the foxes that cannot read the signs saying it’s an airport, allow scheduled flights during night time, start the daytime flights earlier than any other real airport and anything else the airport wants. The Airport does not vote in the councillors, so we , the residents, get the chance to vote them out, that’s if you can ever get the individuals to actually say if they will vote against any airport expansion.[/p][/quote]Oh campbells dad, Is this like your crazy "runway is made of dirt theory" Like most airports, Southend has tanks under the aircraft stands to hold deicer runoff from deicing the aircraft. This application is for runoff from the runway when deicing fluid is put on it, it takes literally 30 seconds of googling to find out that the airport is not "dumping antifreeze in the brooks". Here is a good link from rochfords website that shows the "truth" of the matter http://www.rochford. gov.uk/sites/rochfor d.gov.uk/files/docum ents/files/planning_ jaap_exj016g.pdf disenfranchisedpast
  • Score: 1

4:46pm Fri 9 May 14

jayman says...

https://www.facebook
.com/groups/26626026
7492/


Joe Clark
51 mins
SAEN are asking (ordering) their supporters/family/fr
iends/people from the planet zog to comment against the proposed de-icer disposal via the Environmental Agency website, if you don't want them to win then comment for the airport.
https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/publicatio
ns/ss2-6yf-environme
ntal-permit-applicat
ion-advertisement/ss
2-6yf-environmental-
permit-application-a
dvertisement#view-th
e-application..

------

cotton socks, bless em.
https://www.facebook .com/groups/26626026 7492/ Joe Clark 51 mins SAEN are asking (ordering) their supporters/family/fr iends/people from the planet zog to comment against the proposed de-icer disposal via the Environmental Agency website, if you don't want them to win then comment for the airport. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/publicatio ns/ss2-6yf-environme ntal-permit-applicat ion-advertisement/ss 2-6yf-environmental- permit-application-a dvertisement#view-th e-application.. ------ cotton socks, bless em. jayman
  • Score: -4

12:33am Tue 3 Jun 14

Nebs says...

What is the purpose of the consultation?

We have recently received a permit application for London Southend Airport. The application is for the discharge of surface water run-off, containing de-icer from its runway and taxiway into Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook. When we receive an application for this kind of permit we consult the general public in addition to any statutory consultees. For this application we will also be consulting Natural England, the government’s advisor on the natural environment.

Why are you holding a drop in?

We appreciate that there are concerns about how the surrounding watercourses will be affected and we are therefore holding a consultation drop-in at the Rochford Hotel, Bradley Way, Rochford, SS4 1BU on 9 June 2014 from 14:00 -19:00.

At the drop-in our permitting and regulatory experts will be on hand to talk about the application and, if issued, what conditions the airport will need to comply with in order to protect the watercourse and the surrounding environment.

What can I have my say on?

The purpose of the consultation is to seek your views on the proposals put forward by the airport operator. For your comments to be considered they must be explicitly linked to the particulars of the application and must be supported by fact over opinion.

We are unable to consider comments, or discuss at the drop-in, issues outside of our remit such as airport expansion, noise and traffic.

What will be discharged into Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook?

For the majority of the year the surface water run-off will be rainfall. During the winter months when conditions are icy the run-off, from snow and ice melt, will contain traces of de-icer.

Isn’t de-icer fairly toxic?

In common with most airports, Southend Airport uses a glycol based de-icer and a Potassium Acetate de-icer.

The glycol based de-icer is used to de-ice the aeroplanes and can be harmful to aquatic life. The use of glycol based de-icers are restricted to a dedicated area where the run-off is collected in a sealed tank and removed from site by tanker for off-site disposal.

Southend Airport surface water run-off permit application

Frequently asked questions

www.gov.uk/environme
nt-agency

Potassium Acetate is used to de-ice the runway and taxiways and is considered to be of low toxicity and is biodegradable. Only this de-icer, mixed with surface water, will be allowed to discharge into Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook.

How do you know it is safe to discharge into Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook?

In cooperation with us, London Southend Airport has been trialling the process for just over two years, covering two winters. During this time extensive ecological monitoring has been taking place and we have found little or no impact on water courses and wildlife.

If the permit is granted the airport will carry out routine monitoring and submit its findings to us. In addition, we will continue to sample Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook as part of our routine sampling programme.

If monitoring shows there is a detrimental impact over time we will seek to change the conditions of the permit.

The airport has asked to discharge up to 360 cubic metres per day of run-off.

This seems a lot?

This is the maximum amount the airport will be allowed to discharge. On most days of the year it is unlikely this amount will be reached.

When does the consultation close?

All comments need to be received by 20 June 2014. During our determination stage we will take into account all the relevant information that has been submitted by consultees. If your questions or concerns have not been addressed in this document or at the drop in, they will be responded to individually by one of our permitting officers.

If we are minded to issue a permit, a draft copy will be made available to everyone who has commented on the application and/or given us their contact details at our drop-in.

How can I submit my comments?

Please send any comments about the application to:

Permitting and Support Centre – Water Quality Team,

Quadrant 2, 99 Parkway Avenue,

Sheffield, S9 4WF

or psc-waterquality@env
ironment-agency.gov.
uk

Please quote the following application number: EPR/HB3790ND/A001
What is the purpose of the consultation? We have recently received a permit application for London Southend Airport. The application is for the discharge of surface water run-off, containing de-icer from its runway and taxiway into Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook. When we receive an application for this kind of permit we consult the general public in addition to any statutory consultees. For this application we will also be consulting Natural England, the government’s advisor on the natural environment. Why are you holding a drop in? We appreciate that there are concerns about how the surrounding watercourses will be affected and we are therefore holding a consultation drop-in at the Rochford Hotel, Bradley Way, Rochford, SS4 1BU on 9 June 2014 from 14:00 -19:00. At the drop-in our permitting and regulatory experts will be on hand to talk about the application and, if issued, what conditions the airport will need to comply with in order to protect the watercourse and the surrounding environment. What can I have my say on? The purpose of the consultation is to seek your views on the proposals put forward by the airport operator. For your comments to be considered they must be explicitly linked to the particulars of the application and must be supported by fact over opinion. We are unable to consider comments, or discuss at the drop-in, issues outside of our remit such as airport expansion, noise and traffic. What will be discharged into Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook? For the majority of the year the surface water run-off will be rainfall. During the winter months when conditions are icy the run-off, from snow and ice melt, will contain traces of de-icer. Isn’t de-icer fairly toxic? In common with most airports, Southend Airport uses a glycol based de-icer and a Potassium Acetate de-icer. The glycol based de-icer is used to de-ice the aeroplanes and can be harmful to aquatic life. The use of glycol based de-icers are restricted to a dedicated area where the run-off is collected in a sealed tank and removed from site by tanker for off-site disposal. Southend Airport surface water run-off permit application Frequently asked questions www.gov.uk/environme nt-agency Potassium Acetate is used to de-ice the runway and taxiways and is considered to be of low toxicity and is biodegradable. Only this de-icer, mixed with surface water, will be allowed to discharge into Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook. How do you know it is safe to discharge into Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook? In cooperation with us, London Southend Airport has been trialling the process for just over two years, covering two winters. During this time extensive ecological monitoring has been taking place and we have found little or no impact on water courses and wildlife. If the permit is granted the airport will carry out routine monitoring and submit its findings to us. In addition, we will continue to sample Prittle Brook and Eastwood Brook as part of our routine sampling programme. If monitoring shows there is a detrimental impact over time we will seek to change the conditions of the permit. The airport has asked to discharge up to 360 cubic metres per day of run-off. This seems a lot? This is the maximum amount the airport will be allowed to discharge. On most days of the year it is unlikely this amount will be reached. When does the consultation close? All comments need to be received by 20 June 2014. During our determination stage we will take into account all the relevant information that has been submitted by consultees. If your questions or concerns have not been addressed in this document or at the drop in, they will be responded to individually by one of our permitting officers. If we are minded to issue a permit, a draft copy will be made available to everyone who has commented on the application and/or given us their contact details at our drop-in. How can I submit my comments? Please send any comments about the application to: Permitting and Support Centre – Water Quality Team, Quadrant 2, 99 Parkway Avenue, Sheffield, S9 4WF or psc-waterquality@env ironment-agency.gov. uk Please quote the following application number: EPR/HB3790ND/A001 Nebs
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree