12/01/2006 - A skip hire firm owner was given an eight month
prison sentence at Selby Magistrates Court on Wednesday
11 January 2005 for offences involving the unlicensed disposal
and keeping of waste. Jonathan Crossland, 34, of 1 Richmond
Avenue, Ferrybridge, was also ordered to pay full costs
of £4,171.09 to the Environment Agency, which brought
the case, and compensation of £560 to the Fire Brigade.
On 5 December 2005 at Selby Magistrates Court Crossland
had previously pleaded guilty to 14 waste charges, some
of which related to special waste including asbestos, waste
paint and car batteries.
Magistrates had indicated on 5 December 2005 that they
wanted a pre-sentence report, and were concerned about the
special waste. Sentencing was carried out on 11 January
2006, as above.
Prosecuting on behalf of the Environment Agency Trevor
Cooper had said that the charges related to waste which
was deposited, burnt and kept on various dates on land owned
by Crossland next to the A63 at Selby. The site does not
have a waste management licence, and the Environment Agency
began to receive reports of waste being flytipped there.
Enquiries were begun in March 2004 and statements taken
from witnesses, recording several cases of waste being dumped,
stored and burnt at the site. The Fire Brigade attended
to put out fires on more than one occasion, including 4
April 2004 when a thick cloud of smoke seriously reduced
visibility on the A63.
By dumping waste on unlicensed land Crossland had avoided
the costs of a waste management licence. The licence fee
would have been £1,700, with other fees of approximately
£1,800 a year, plus additional costs in order to get
the site up to standard.
Crossland’s activities in running an unlicensed site meant
that he earned a considerable amount of money by avoiding
paying the costs. The operation of unlicensed sites undermines
the licensing system generally, and meant that Crossland
was able to obtain a commercial advantage over his lawful
competitors.
The way in which the waste was being kept on the site was
unsightly, without any of the protections to the environment
if the site had been properly licensed. These would have
included areas of hard standing and a proper drainage system
to prevent leakage running into ground water. In addition,
the special waste was found on site was asbestos and paint
thinners which carry with them concerns for the environment
and human health.
Burning was also taking place. Waste burned in the open
does not reach high enough temperatures to ensure it is
burnt in the most environmentally sound way. Mixed waste,
such as old furniture, plastics and treated woods, gives
off fumes which add to air pollution.
It was also obvious from the evidence provided by the Fire
Service that the burning was a hazard to road users.
The magistrates said that Crossland had substantially benefited
financially by his activities. He had also been fined previously
the sum of £10,000, and had paid little of this.
His actions had caused serious environmental concerns and
had endangered public safety.
For these reasons the magistrates felt that a non-custodial
sentence could not be justified, and would not stop Crossland
from re-offending.
In mitigation it was said that Crossland had co-operated
with the Environment Agency and was aware of how serious
the offence was. It was also said that he had buried his
head in the sand and ignored the environmental regulations.
This prosecution was brought by the Environment Agency,
which has the primary responsibility for regulating and
enforcing the control of pollution and environmental protection
legislation. The scope of the Agency’s work includes dealing
with pollution to the land, water and air.
Much of the pollution we experience as a society is attributable
to the improper disposal and keeping of waste. By imposing
restrictions on the way in which waste materials are handled
and disposed of, it is hoped that environmental pollution
can be reduced. |