The case, brought by the Environment Agency, saw one man, James Mervyn Williams, 38, sentenced in his absence to 12 months in prison. Another, Christopher Kerr, 74, was handed a four-month suspended prison sentence for operating the site at Great Staughton.
And, Derbyshire-based Biowood Recycling Ltd, a wood recycling business, was ordered to pay more than £300,000 in compensation to the site owner in connection with the illegal operation at the site. Biowood has strongly defended and explained its actions in supplying material to the site.
The case was heard at Cambridge Crown Court earlier this month (3 May). It dates back to August and September 2014.
According to the Environment Agency which brought the case to Court, Mr Kerr leased the site on the Cambridgeshire/Bedfordshire border, under the name ‘CGK Recycling’. Mr Williams, sole director of a now dissolved recycling company, MT Recycling Ltd, ran a similar waste wood site. He helped Mr Kerr set up the Great Staughton operation and brokered waste wood to CGK Recycling.
Process
According to the Agency the owner of the site had been told that it would be used to process timber, but the Agency was later informed that the site had been operating illegally. When officers investigated they found wood stacked three-to-four metres high, it said.
The regulator added that Mr Kerr had registered a waste exemption which limited the amount of waste in any seven-day period to just 500 tonnes. Instead, around 1,000 tonnes was taken there every week for five weeks, the Agency said.
Supply
Biowood Recycling was brought in to the case as it had sourced the waste wood which was supplied to the site. Biowood pleaded guilty to failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent the commission of an offence.
Following the conclusion of the case, Biowood was ordered to pay a total of £314,426 in compensation to the owner of the site at the Little America Industrial Estate, £255,116 of which was ordered to be paid under the Proceeds of Crime Act. In addition, the company was ordered to pay prosecution costs of £20,000.
Agency view
After the hearing, Environment Agency enforcement team leader Phil Henderson said: “The illegal and uncontrolled storage of combustible waste at this location gave considerable cause for concern to both local communities and the authorities alike, so we are pleased with the penalties imposed by the court.
“In cases like this, the Environment Agency will relentlessly pursue not only those who actually dumped the waste but also others involved in or facilitating the crime.
“We pay tribute to the affected landowner who acted to remove the waste minimising risk to the public and via proceeds of crime legislation has now been rightly compensated.”
Biowood
In a statement following the conclusion of the case, Biowood clarified that it was not involved in the wood processing operation on the site, but that it had supplied the wood requested by Mr Williams.
“The company had no grounds to suspect the site was going to be operated illegally,” Biowood said in its statement, adding that it had: “paid the market rate gate fees to Williams for brokering wood into the site and there were no red flags raised throughout the transaction that gave rise for concern.
“Numerous checks were made prior to arranging the supply of material to the Great Staughton site, including a site visit, and ensuring that the operator had the correct lease and permits in place. These checks showed the Landlord had agreed to the storage and treatment of waste wood on his site. They also confirmed that the operator had a permit in the form of an exemption which allowed waste wood to be treated by shredding.“
By pleading guilty Biowood said that it had accepted that a further check would have revealed that the site, through its waste exemption, did not have the capacity to store the amount of waste that was being supplied.
It added: “On being made aware that the site was not processing material, the company immediately stopped any further deliveries to the site. The company co-operated fully with the Environment Agency’s investigation and had no previous convictions. Unfortunately, as the operators were effectively stockpiling the material and not processing it, the volume of material delivered to the site substantially exceeded the exemption.”
Register for free to comment