The criticism came from wood recycler Armstrong Environmental Services, concerning a two-year case that went all the way to the High Court in London before being quashed at the end of March.
” We were hastily treated by the Environment Agency and they initially used heavy-handed tactics. We couldn't believe the contrived case they brought against us.“
– David Cheers, Armstrong Environmental Services
In a case described by eventual winners Armstrong as “contrived”, the Environment Agency had prosecuted the firm for storing a relatively small amount of wood – less than 1,000 tonnes – on a site without a waste management licence.
The company had been storing the material under a licence exemption, with the intention of chipping it on-site to produce woodchips for the manufacture of chipboard products and alternative markets such as animal bedding.
The Agency had argued through its prosecution that because some of the wood included melamine board, it did not meet licence exemption criteria. The Agency also attempted to show that the woodchip being made from the recycled wood was not technically a “timber product” and shouldn't count under the exemption.
Justice
But Mr Justice Holland ruled against the Agency earlier this year at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, stating that he had “no doubt” that the wood recycling Armstrong was carrying out was identified in law as “separate exempt activity”. The judge also dismissed the argument that chipped wood is not a timber product.
Speaking to letsrecycle.com this week, Armstrong financial director David Cheers said the company had a good relationship with its local Environment Agency, but said the actions of the national Agency had been heavy-handed.
He said: “We were hastily treated by the Environment Agency and they initially used heavy-handed tactics. We couldn't believe the contrived case they brought against us.
“The Agency even claimed they got a call from the public saying we were digging a hole and burying waste. But we've got an eight acre site covered in a three-foot thick concrete pad,” Mr Cheers added.
” The Court told us wood chip was a timber product but we felt this wasn't clear or reasoned enough and would affect how we regulated other sites in the future.“
– Finola Ayres, Environment Agency
Failed
Commenting on the case, the Environment Agency lawyer Finola Ayres defended the point regarding the storage of melamine board on exempt sites, insisting the case had been lost on a technicality. She said: “This was a big point which we failed on. We hadn't shown that there was potentially environmental harm. The court may well have sided with us if we had shown that.”
Ms Ayres said the Agency had decided to take the case to the High Court after losing at the Crown Court in Bolton in order to clarify the regulations. She said: “The Court told us wood chip was a timber product but we felt this wasn't clear or reasoned enough and would affect how we regulated other sites in the future. We needed to go to the High Court to get clear guidelines.”
However, Mr Cheers said the Agency's motivations had been to close down the licensing exemptions designed for smaller wood recyclers. He said: “The Agency's goal was to bring waste wood out of exemption quickly. The case cost us a lot of money and was a huge strain on resources, but it proved that waste wood can be processed under an exemption.”
Subscribe for free