Anglian Press Office - 3-Jan-2007 - A Grimsby firm which imports raw chilled and frozen whole fish has been fined a total of £2,250 and ordered to pay £1,200 costs for failing its environmental duty.

Kirwin Brothers Ltd fillets the fish and supplies wholesalers and merchants from its premises at North Quay, Fish Docks and during that process it deals with a large amount of packaging.

Under rules to control the amount of waste going into landfill, companies which deal with more than 50 tonnes of packaging in a year and have an annual turnover in excess of £2m have a duty to pay for the recycling of a quantity of packaging material.

Kirwin Brothers dealt with 72 tonnes of packaging and had a turnover of £9.99 million for 2004, the qualifying year, and should have followed the regulations during 2005. The company admitted three offences in Grimsby Magistrates’ Court today (Wed) but said they had been unaware of the regulations.

The offences came to light on a routine enquiry by the Environment Agency, whose responsibility it is to enforce the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 and 2006.

The aim of the regulations is to reduce the amount of waste going into landfill sites and the failure of companies to comply with this legislation undermines the UK’s ability to meet targets set out in the European regulations.

Under the regulations, obligated companies are required to: 1) register with the Environment Agency or a compliance scheme by 7 April each year 2) provide evidence of recovery and recycling of specific tonnages of packaging waste and 3) provide the Environment Agency with a certificate stating that they have met their obligations.

It is estimated that the company saved a total of £1,452 by not registering and not paying for packaging to be recycled. The company is now registered.

After the hearing Environment Agency officer John Clifton said: ‘Whilst this is a long established company, changes to operations meant that more packaging was handled bringing the company within the regulations in recent years.’

Kirwin Brothers Ltd admitted:

1. That you the defendant as a producer under Regulation 3(2) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 failed to register by 7 April 2005 as required by Regulations 3(5)(a) and 5 of those Regulations. Contrary to Regulation 34(1)(a) and (5) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 and Section 95 of the Environment Act 1995. Fined £1000.

2. That you the defendant as a producer under Regulation 4(2) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005 failed to recover and recycle packaging waste during the year ending 31 December 2005 as required by Regulation 4(4)(b)(i) of those Regulations. Contrary to Regulation 40(1)(b) and (9) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005 and Section 95 of the Environment Act 1995. Fined £1000.

3. That you the defendant as a producer under Regulation 4(2) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005 failed to furnish a certificate of compliance in respect of the recovery and recycling obligations by 31 January 2006 as required by Regulations 4(4)(c) and 21 of those Regulations. Contrary to Regulation 40(1)(c) and (9) of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005 and Section 95 of the Environment Act 1995. Fined £1000.