Owner of garden centre fined for burning waste
The owner of a Somerset garden centre has been ordered to pay
more than £15,700 in fines and costs for illegally burning trade
waste. He pleaded guilty to four offences under The Environmental
Permitting Regulations 2007 and one under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990.
On 14th January 2010 the Environment Agency (EA)
visited the Rocky Mountain Garden Centre in Wells to investigate a
report of illegal waste burning. They found no evidence of burning,
but noticed there were very few waste collection facilities on
site.
Following the visit, the EA wrote to the owner, asking him to
provide them with all the waste transfer notes (WTNs) for all waste
removed from the garden centre for the preceding two years. This
was to establish whether waste had been collected and disposed of
correctly.
The owner replied saying that as a small business he did not
think he needed to keep WTNs. It was pointed out to the owner that
the company was located in an extremely sensitive area for
groundwater and any pollutants entering the ground could
contaminate public water supplies.
On 27th January 2010, the EA returned to the site and
inspected land opposite the garden centre, also owned by the
defendant. They found a large pile of burnt waste covering an area
of ground approximately 8 metres by 2.5 metres and some 2 metres
high. Nearby was a pile of unburnt waste and three scrap vehicles.
When the EA returned a month later the pile of burnt waste had
increased in size. The ash contained electrical appliances, burnt
batteries, mouse poison, holly wreaths, a shop display unit,
barbeque tools, garden tools plus some household waste and
paperwork from the garden centre.
The EA commented that: "The illegal burning of commercial waste
on this site posed a serious risk of contamination to soils and
groundwater. The defendant continued to dispose of waste by burning
despite being warned, on a number of occasions, that his actions
were unlawful. The offences were deliberate and took place over a
prolonged period of time. The defendant denied he was motivated by
financial gain, although he would have saved a considerable amount
of money in waste disposal costs"