On 15 May 2026, the Environment Agency announced that it had issued Angus Fire Limited with a permit variation for its High Bentham site in North Yorkshire. The associated decision record states that the application was duly made on 27 June 2025 and that the varied permit was issued on 8 May 2026 under reference EPR/XP3832NV/V004. (gov.uk) The regulatory question is narrower than some of the wider local concern around PFAS. Angus Fire no longer manufactures firefighting foam at the site: manufacturing and sale ended by March 2024, testing ended by April 2022 and storage of fluorosurfactant raw materials ended by May 2024. The variation instead addresses historic PFAS contamination in rainwater falling on higher-risk parts of the site. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
The variation authorises a new treatment train using surface-active foam fractionation and powdered activated carbon to remove PFAS from collected stormwater before any release to the River Wenning. It also adds a new water emission point, W2, and updates older permit wording so that the live permit reflects the end of firefighting foam manufacture at High Bentham. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) The discharge conditions are specific. Under the permit, treated stormwater may be emitted to the River Wenning at no more than 48m3/day, and PFOS must be no greater than 10ng/l before emission can occur. The decision document also records that if treated stormwater cannot achieve that PFOS threshold, it may need to be removed from site for further treatment elsewhere rather than released to the river. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
The Agency's press notice and decision document make the same legal point: a permit variation can only be refused if the statutory requirements are not met. The determination was made under regulation 20 of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, with the site also assessed within the wider Industrial Emissions Directive and Waste Framework Directive framework. (gov.uk) In regulatory terms, that means consultation informs the evidence base and the permit conditions, but does not give the regulator an open-ended discretion to reject an application that satisfies the legal tests. That is an inference from the Agency's published legal framework and from its conclusion that the permitted operation can proceed without causing significant pollution of the environment or harm to human health. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
The record shows a two-stage consultation. The original application was advertised on the Environment Agency website from 24 July to 21 August 2025 and in the Lancaster Guardian on 24 July 2025. A further public consultation on the draft decision then ran from 5 March to 8 April 2026, with consultation responses and application material placed on the public register. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) During determination, the Environment Agency sought extra information from the operator and consulted UKHSA, the local director of public health, North Yorkshire Council environmental health and planning, the Food Standards Agency and the Health and Safety Executive. In the later consultation, UKHSA said it had no further recommendations after reviewing the additional material, while North Yorkshire Council recorded no objection to the proposed variation. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
On the technical case, the Agency accepted Angus Fire's SAFF/PAC treatment train as best available technique for current permitting purposes. The decision document says site evidence supported more than 99 per cent PFOS removal at the SAFF stage and over 90 per cent removal across PFAS compounds in the combined system, while also recognising that the process may be refined during commissioning and operation. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) One reason the permit focuses closely on PFOS is that the Agency says PFOS is the only PFAS with a published Environmental Quality Standard on its website and the only PFAS classed as a priority hazardous substance under the Water Framework Directive. Even so, the control framework goes wider than PFOS alone: the permit requires broader PFAS and non-PFAS monitoring, and improvement condition IC14 requires a first-year performance report by 31 May 2027. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk)
For residents and other operators, the key point is that this is an enforceable operating regime rather than a one-off approval. The permit requires regular monitoring at W2, quarterly reporting for water emissions and process monitoring, annual PFAS analysis of pre-treated stormwater, and notification to the regulator within 24 hours of any breach or significant adverse environmental effect. The decision document also says the monitoring results will be placed on the public registers. (assets.publishing.service.gov.uk) The Environment Agency's published enforcement position remains unchanged after issue. The press release states that the Agency can use enforcement notices, suspension or revocation, fines and criminal sanctions including prosecution. The decision document also states that if Angus Fire later sought to treat soil, groundwater or any non-stormwater waste stream, a further permit variation would be needed, so the present approval is confined to contaminated stormwater from the historic PFAS issue at High Bentham. (gov.uk)