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.