On behalf of my two children, both fans of the beach, I would ask why Southern Water's proposal does not include tertiary (ultra-violet) treatment, which would render its wastewater outfall practically benign?

Primary-treated effluent (as currently discharged at Portobello) contains 1,000,000 faecal coliforms (the bugs that cause stomach upsets and worse) per 100ml of water - approximately one egg-cup.

Secondary-treated effluent contains 100,000 and tertiary-treated effluent merely 35.

Southern Water's proposal is for "secondary" treatment as required by European law.

This law will inevitably change and Southern Water will have to comply.

Why not implement tertiary treatment now as more enlightened authorities (Jersey Water, Wessex Water, South West Water, South Wales Water) have felt obliged to do?

Money will be saved in the long run in terms of investment, as well as the man-hours that will not be lost because of ailments contracted as a direct result of better but still inadequate treatment in terms of what can be achieved.

Surely Southern Water owes it to the people of Brighton and Hove (and its millions of visitors) to include proper tertiary treatment, regardless of where the plant is ultimately sited?

I believe what will emerge is that Southern Water has attempted to railroad this through prior to final designation of the National Park boundaries and not disclosing the full facts regarding the environmental implications in relation to the facts outlined above.

-Tracey Butler, Ainsworth Avenue, Ovingdean