I WAS concerned to read your editorial (LET, July 15) about the recent pollution of Hyndburn Brook, in which you say that the Environment Agency is too slow to bring the polluter to court.

In cases like this, we may know who the polluter is, but we are legally not allowed to name them until they are formally charged.

Time is needed to gather evidence required by the courts, not only to convict the polluter, but to show the effects the pollution will have on the affected area (which could include, for example, a full biological survey into wildlife, insects and fish) in order that the court can impose an appropriate sentence. Far from 'dawdling,' our enforcement teams work hard to ensure we have all the information the court will require to uphold our cases.

Once there is sufficient evidence for a court action to be brought, any hearing date is set by the local court and is subject to their workload.

In any pollution incident, our first concern has to be the environment, and our teams of specialist staff are on 24-hour call. A prosecution may arise from the event, but there is no benefit to the Agency or the public in rushing to court without the full evidence.

JOHN HOLMES, Senior Legal Adviser, The Environment Agency, North West Region.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.