Waste director pays the price

Contravention

V J Commercials Ltd (VJ) operates a vehicle breakers yard at the former Shipdham Airfield, Norfolk. The company has an environmental permit which defines the area it can use for its activities and the terms and conditions which must be followed.

Full up

By August 2013 VJ had run out of space in its permitted area and it began to store scrap vehicles on the runway of the disused airfield. In addition the company was using an unauthorised building to store waste. Effectively it had three waste sites but just one environmental permit.The Environment Agency (EA) officers who carried out an inspection discovered how the storage had spread to these non-permitted areas and found that oil was leaking from the vehicles.

Bear in mind

The storage and treatment of waste is a regulated activity requiring an environmental permit. Once the activity takes place on land which is not covered by a permit it is illegal, regardless of how the work is undertaken and whether the operator has a permit for adjacent land.

Refusal to cease

The EA sent letters and carried out further visits, each time advising VJ that its activities outside of its permitted area must stop, but it continued without change for at least twelve months. Ohanis John Manoukian (M), a director of VJ, told investigators that if he complied the business would not be able to continue.

In court

The judge concluded that M and VJs actions had been driven by profit. Although the company had complied after August 2014, its refusal to co-operate for such a long period of time was regarded as a particularly aggravating feature of the case.

Note. Both defendants were, however, given credit for their guilty pleas and the remediation work which had taken place after the additional areas were vacated.

Both VJ and M were charged with two offences under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 . The company was fined £48,000 with £13,000 in costs.

Personal responsibility

M was said to have caused VJs offence as a result of his consent, connivance or neglect. He was given a community payback order requiring him to carry out 180 hours of unpaid work for each offence. He was also fined £24,000 with £4,000 in costs.

Tip. The case may not have reached court at all if M had responded quickly and apologetically when the offence was first discovered. Unlike M, don’t expect to second-guess the outcome of a court case and budget for a certain level of fine.

Note. If, as the judge suggested, the offence was a calculated commercial decision, it backfired. Whilst M could have predicted a penalty against his company, the personal fine and an extensive community payback order would have been a nasty surprise.