26/01/2006 - A Hull company was today fined £4,500 after pleading guilty to waste charges in a case heard at Beverley Magistrates.

Pocklington Environmental Services pleaded guilty to treating waste in a manner likely to cause pollution, and failing to take measures to prevent the escape of waste from their site. They were ordered to pay costs of £2,481.39 to the Environment Agency, which brought the case.

Ben Reid, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, told the court that that Pocklington Environmental Services had a site in central Hull at Dalton Street, where they recycled and shredded wood and stored the resultant materials, often in the form of fine particles or dust.

After receiving complaints about the site from the public the Environment Agency investigated and found that the shredded material was stored in large heaps, unenclosed and open to the air. In windy conditions dust from the site was blown over the surrounding area in considerable amounts, including neighbouring business premises and a bus depot.

Local workers described the dust as similar to snow falling, and complained that it caused considerable problems, particularly with skin and eye irritation.

The Environment Agency received a total of over 50 complaints about the site, and visited it on several occasions to discuss the problems with staff and the firm’s director Robert Lewis, and seek a way of containing the dust. Lewis and the firm were warned that they had to sort out the problem or face a prosecution.

Despite this it continued and on 17 November 2004 complaints were received of major dust problems. Officers attended and found nearby parked vehicles were thick with dust, and a large cloud of dust was drifting over the site boundary. Witnesses described the dust as like sand blowing across a beach, and complained of discomfort and physical irritation.

In February 2005 the company’s permission to treat wood dust was removed by the Environment Agency. Hull City Council had also received complaints, and started their own enforcement action. The court heard that the company had already received a formal caution from the Council that they must abate the nuisance caused by the dust.

In mitigation it was said that the company had listened to advice and warnings from the Environment Agency. They had employed a specialist consultant to advise on the alterations they needed, and they told the court that this had cost them £45,000. They had implemented the recommendations but accepted that the dust pollution had continued regardless. The company had now moved to a new site with fewer neighbours.

Craig Wood of the Environment Agency said:

“This company had several warnings that they needed to solve this problem, but failed to take any action. When I attended on 17 November 2004 it was immediately apparent that the escape of dust was out of control and causing serious problems in the vicinity.

“It is the responsibility of those producing waste to make sure it does not cause a problem to anyone, and to dispose of the waste properly. The Environment Agency will not hesitate to take action against companies or individuals who break the law in this way.”

Magistrates said that they recognised the efforts that the company had made to improve following advice and warnings from the Environment Agency. They felt that the move to a new site had significantly reduced the risk of further problems. However the company had caused pollution and should be punished for it.

Anyone spotting environmental problems is encouraged to ring the Environment Agency’s hotline – 0800 80 70 60 – as soon as possible, and with as much information as possible.