The owner of a Reading skip hire business that took waste without the proper licences has been electronically tagged and put under curfew, given a six month suspended sentence and ordered to pay costs of £6,000.

His son, also involved in the business, was given a 200 hour community service order.

Leslie Tucker Dunn Snr and Leslie Thomas Dunn Jnr of Arborfield Cross, Reading pleaded guilty on the 11 January 2010 at Oxford Crown Court to depositing controlled waste without a Waste Management Licence.

The Dunns ran a series of businesses from the site including a skip hire business called – “Talking Rubbish” – and received waste ranging from wood, plastics, cardboard, rubber, polystyrene and soil between January and July 2008.

Environment Agency officers regularly attended the site and saw waste being handled on many occasions but, despite the repeated requests to stop the unlawful activity, the Dunns continued on.

To legitimately bring such waste onto the site and deal with it, the owners needed planning permission and a relevant waste management licence or environmental permit.

The judge told the defendants that the offences must be viewed against a “backdrop of sustained enforcement action by the Environment Agency”, and congratulated the efforts of the Environment Agency in its sustained investigation despite efforts by the defendants to derail it.

The court heard how Dunn Snr wrote to the Environment Agency in a statement claiming that he no longer ran the business at the site due to ill-health and it was his sons who ran the business. At court it was submitted on his behalf that he advised the business and also assisted when required. He was caught on CCTV driving a lorry to a landfill run by another company.

The court was also told that in December 2007 Mr Dunn senior was fined £30,000 and ordered to pay prosecution costs of £6,000 after pleading guilty on a previous date at Reading Magistrates’ Court to six offences of breaching the conditions of his scrap metal waste management licence and also bringing non scrap metal waste onto the site without a waste management licence.

Environment officer Gill May said: “The company ignored repeated warnings to stop the handling and treatment of non scrap metal waste without a waste management licence or later an Environmental Permit.

“A waste management licence or an Environmental Permit would impose controls designed to protect the environment and those living in the local area. Companies operating illegally and who also avoid the costs of measures to protect the environment gain a commercial advantage over those companies operating legally.”

“We are pleased the court has deemed this a serious case by handing out a suspended sentence and a community service order.

“Waste company operators must ensure that they comply with the regulations and operate within the conditions of their permits so that they are not harming the environment or breaking the law.”

Every week I hear one politician or another bleating about the government making too much red tape and have come to the inevitable conclusion that it is part of the script.  Are they really bothered?  No red tape = no politicians and civil servants,  meaning that they would all have to find another job and expenses.  Every year we have over 3,000 statutory instruments (regulations and orders) produced, regardless of the persuasion  of the government, by the bureaucratic machine. I know it keeps me busy but sometimes we all want life to be simple.  Working in the complex world of waste legislation can be infuriating and I never cease to be amazed at how simple matters can be over complicated.

One such example is my old friend “Low Risk Regulation” which causes some waste activities to fall outside the legislative trap and catches others that should never even be considered – so  I love it and hate it in equal measure.  I covered the list of low risk exemptions some time ago and since then several of my colleagues at Oaktree have been instrumental in getting new activities added to the list so I though it would be worth having another look to see what you can do for free!

To recap, the Environment Agency has produced a list of low risk exempt activities because they believe that it would be disproportionate to require them to be permitted or enforce against them, which is fair enough and licensing everything would clog up the permitting teams, resulting in even bigger delays.  The list is by no means a sensible one as there are many activities on the list which should simply not be on the EA’s radar, such as LRW043 “The secure storage of waste coathangers or their constituent parts destined for recovery.  The sorting and segregation of waste coathangers into their constituent parts.”

The problem stems from the fact that even though we produce so many sets of regulations it can take an age to make amendments.  When they were originally written  no one thought of all the different uses waste could be put to.  My personal view is that if the definition of waste was interpreted more sensibly there would be little need for many of the low risk exemptions or even some proper exemptions or permits.  Instead of dreaming, here are some of my favorites:

LRW 154:   Secure storage, for up to 6 months, in a freezer of 5m3 of dead pets collected from highways

LRW 008:   The secure storage and manual sorting of waste footwear destined for recovery.

LRW 172:   The use of clean river gravel for maintenance of existing tracks and footpaths (why is that waste?)

LRW188:    The secure storage of up to 30 cubic metres of uncontaminated clay pending reuse (again – why?)

LRW 89:     The secure storage of up to 30 cubic metres of uncontaminated sand pending reuse (madness).

LRW 095    The secure storage, sorting and repair of non-mechanical garden tools. (hoe, hoe)

LRW181     Secure storage of waste wine bottle corks in a 40 yd bin pending recovery.

Here are some useful ones though:

LRW0111:  The storage of a maximum of 50m3 waste bricks to be subjected to manual cleaning destined for reuse.  The manual cleaning of waste bricks destined for reuse.

LRW 042:  The sorting and deconstruction of a maximum of 50m3 of waste windows and doors for the purpose of recovery.

LRW046:    The secure storage and manual treatment of waste stone and timber destined for reuse.

LRW 339:   Secure storage of up to 20 tonnes of waste plasterboard and gypsum wallboard for up to one month in a sealed weatherproof container pending recovery.

LRW170:    The bulking up of paint residues, at a site other than where produced, prior to recovery. Maximum of two 205 litre drums at any one time to be kept securely in a building.

And some of ours:

LRW 034    The baling of waste tyres pending recovery

LRW 369:   The secure storage and dismantling of end of life touring and static caravans, providing the operations are carried out within a building on an impermeable surface with sealed drainage.  A maximum of 5 caravans to be stored at anyone time.  A maximum of 30 caravans a year to be dismantled.

So if you think you have an activity that is low risk or weird enough to be low risk give me a call and I’ll maybe write another article that ranges from sorting coathangers to using lions’ poo as cat deterrent (they are real ones).  To see the updated list follow the link below or Google ‘low risk regulation’ (unless you are in China):

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/topics/waste/32080.aspx

Marco Muia BSc (Hons) MSc MCIWM is the Director of Oaktree Environmental Limited. He specialises in all aspects of waste planning and regulation consultancy. He also holds the level 4 COTCs for Hazardous Waste Treatment and Transfer. You can contact Marco on 01606 558833 if you have any questions about this article or e-mail him at marco@oaktreeenvironmental.co.uk

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn has publicly spoke out about the thinking behind landfill bans and reassures councils and skip hire companies alike that the definition of municipal waste changes.

We’ve all been having problems getting to grips with new changes regarding governmental reforms over waste over the past few years and it’s not about to get any easier. Local authorities and waste management companies look set to have to grapple with landfill bans being imposed for different waste streams on different dates over the years to 2020.

The Environment secretary has confirms these landfill bans will take place. Benn’s agenda is to reduce the amount of waste materials from being sent to landfill.

Ahead of a consultation on the bans – which could be issued in February 2010 – Mr Benn described them as an “encouragement” and as a form of “mutual support” for the landfill tax.

Asked whether landfill bans were Defra’s cause célèbre for waste at present and whether they were really necessary in light of the rising landfill tax, the Secretary of State said: “We are trying to make progress on a number of fronts. As I said at my ‘World Without Waste’ speech in October, why do we put all these valuable products in landfill?

“For me it is about the two things supporting each other which is why we have got to the point of landfill bans, they will mutually support each other so we can get to where we want to be. Landfill tax has had an impact, but it is about thinking ahead, being ambitious. It does not make sense to put food waste or wood or plastic or glass or aluminium cans or tin cans into landfill.”

Part of the reason behind Mr Benn’s thinking is thought to be the fact that the UK still sends 50% of household waste to landfill as well as a large percentage of commercial and industrial (C&I) waste.

By banning materials from landfill, this will encourage further recycling, said Mr Benn. “By saying you are not going to stick this into landfill any more, then we need to find another way of dealing with it which will further support the way this material is recycled and build on what we have achieved already through the efforts of local authorities, and I pay tribute to them in responding to the landfill levy.”

The Secretary of State singled out food waste as one of the key target areas for future landfill bans, arguing that it makes no sense to landfill this “for obvious reasons, both because of the methane and the fact that you have a fantastic alternative which is either composting or producing renewable energy.”

And, he suggested that all local authorities ought to be collecting food waste at least by 2020, although a precise date will be consulted on. Mr Benn remarked:  “If some local authorities can collect food waste, why can’t all local authorities collect food waste?”

And, he emphasised the logic of a landfill ban in the case of food waste which will help encourage new infrastructure such as anaerobic digestion (AD). “By definition, I take you back to landfill bans; this is a policy that has a number of benefits for clearly when we get to the point that food no longer goes into landfill clearly every local authority is going to have to find another way of dealing with it.”

Mr Benn dismissed industry claims that AD developers are finding it hard to get funding for projects and said: “We have done a huge amount on AD as this is an emerging technology with enormous potential. We have doubled the incentives under ROCs from the first of April last year, Feed-in-Tariffs will come in, there is £10m for the demonstrator projects, and the EA has said digestate will not be classified as a waste and the AD task force is working with the industry.  Frankly it is a technology which is waiting to take off because all the building blocks are in place.

We’ve all had a rough 12 months of it, and the scrap metal industry have found it as difficult as everyone else. But a whole twelve months after business minister Baroness Vadera famously got shot down when she announced she could see the green shoots of the economy – the British Metals Recycling Association forecasts that 2010 is going to be difficult but saw the scrap metal industry in ‘good health’.

BMRA director general Ian Hetherington told The Skip: “We anticipate 2010 will continue to be a difficult year.

“We detect that most metal recyclers have planned pretty well and they’ve cut costs according to the economic outlook. The industry is in good health and I don’t see that there will be a huge rise in business failures.

“However, they may come under stress when growth returns and the amount of working cash available is very low because of the recent low trading levels. Firms need to be able to buy more material in order to be able to grow, which puts a lot of strain on the working cash.”

Hetherington explained that it is not just the UK industry that is experiencing difficulties and that those in Europe feel the same way.

“Any weakening of the UK steel industry is bad for business. Our members are very resourceful and have found new markets for this scrap but a strong home for steel scrap is very important to the UK industry. Everyone accepts there is over capacity and somehow or other this must be dealt with but I don’t think this is the death knell to the UK industry.”

He explained that in a global market the UK struggles to be competitive against low-cost producers. This is due to a higher UK cost base, an older infrastructure, which is possibly not as efficient as a result of older plants and equipment and significant over capacity across the world.

In these times, one must think outside the box, and perhaps this is a good time fvor the scrap metal industry – and other industries – to take a look at operations and methods and review their practices. They may be able to turn the archaic into a modern, money making enterprise.

Whilst writing this article the snow is all around and everybody is talking about the weather, salt bins and getting the kids back to school! Whilst we all try to get back to whatever can be called “normal”, this month I am hoping to hang on to some Christmas cheer, with a little box of Christmas goodies!

Winter weather

Over the recent Arctic conditions the most common H&S phrase I have heard is “……they don’t grit the car parks because of H&S”. This is based on the assumption that to slip on ice is seen as “an act of god”, but if an attempt has been made to clear it up, then this can lead to a claim if it hasn’t been done well enough………..does this stand up from a legal point of view?

Firstly, I suppose it is important to state the obvious, with the risks being very real, with slips on the icy conditions accounting for a lot of accidents at work, particularly those that might involve visitors and staff on car parks, paths etc.

The 1957 Occupiers Liability Act puts a duty on the person in control of the land to make sure that they have taken all “reasonable” steps to make the land “reasonably” safe. Therefore this is the first test that you might need to consider……..that word “reasonable” keeps popping up, but it might be difficult to argue that doing nothing is reasonable.

The next bit to think about is from the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, with Regulation 12 putting an obligation on you to ensure the safe condition of floors and traffic routes. Paragraph 96 of the Approved Code of Practice (ACOP) to these Regulations specifically refers to the current weather conditions, stating that…. “Arrangements should be made to minimise risks from snow and ice. This may involve gritting, snow clearing and closure of some routes, particularly outside stairs, ladders and walkways on roofs.”
What does this mean in practice, as if you don’t do it well enough, will you be liable? There are a couple of cases that give us a bit of a steer on what is expected……. Bloxham v Swan Hunter Shipbuilders Ltd and Fildes v International Computers. In these cases, it was established that a system for controlling the hazards of snow and ice discharges liability if it fulfils best practice, but is not expected to extend to unreasonable lengths.

Therefore, it would seem appropriate to devote resources to clearing the most used areas in priority to those less used. For example, this might involve gritting/clearing ice and snow twice a day, early in the morning and in the early evening (the times when most traffic – vehicle and pedestrian – is expected).

Don’t forget that employees have a duty under Section 7 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to take care of their own safety……….remind them of this! Also, it is not just going to be slippery outside, but also inside from water and slush being carried in on shoes. Extra care with doormats and floor cleaning is going to be important to help reduce this hazard.

What about land not under your ownership, but where you might want to be neighbourly? Well, this is a more tricky issue as if an area of the public highway is cleared, there is a common-law duty of care to ensure that it is cleared properly and remains clear. Doing the decent thing may therefore open up a bit of a can of worms!

In summary, I would suggest you have a Winter Risk Management Plan, with documented risk assessments, contingency arrangements and documented checks. All of which should help to mitigate any liability and more importantly, stop people slipping in the first place.

SME Risk Assessment Problems

You may not be surprised to hear, but in a recent study by the European Agency for Safety and Health and Work up to 15% of small enterprises (up to 50 staff) did not carry out risk assessments.

Don’t be one of the 15%……….make sure you are meeting your legal obligation.

A visitor killed at a Scrapyard

I am afraid to say that another tragic death has been through the courts. It occurred at a Southampton scrapyard when a visitor sitting in a car checking for parts was crushed by a grab-claw crane used to move vehicles around the site.

The owners pleaded guilty to a number of offences, to include failing to carry out a risk assessment. The company was fined £50,000 plus costs of £34,373.

The HSE inspector stated that recycling sites were dangerous work places and that warning notices, communication of sites rules and the use of high-visibility clothing should all be used. They also stated that it was important to set the right scene for visitors, so that they realised it was dangerous, with the staff taking the issue seriously.

Dear Bernice

I’ve just started a new recruit – I manage an office in a skip yard near Harlow, Essex. The new guy is showing promise, and is a great person to have in the office. He works hard and is great with the customers. Thing is, he has the most awful breath ever. I literally can only speak to him when he’s on the other side of the room. This is no coffee breath – it’s a smell that I can’t describe, and it smells like it’s from the stomach – it’s a really overpowering stench!

Everybody’s noticed, so what do I do? The idea of letting him know really makes me nervous cos I don’t want to upset his feelings. Can you help Bernice?!?!?!

Troubled, Essex

Hey Troubled!

You’ve come to the right place. It may not be the worse thing ever to happen to anyone, but you’re right, it’s a sensitive subject and you don’t want to embarrass the poor thing. He obviously doesn’t know.

OK, so what do you do? First of all, change your perspective on the thing. You’re doing him a favour by letting him know his breath smells. You’ve not mentioned whether he has a partner or not, but with breath like that, I would hazard a guess he’d have trouble pulling. Get him on his own, and just mention quietly the problem. Say something like, (and this may include a white lie!), ‘I’m not sure if you’ve realised, but I couldn’t help but notice your breath. I was wondering if you have any stomach problems, the only reason is that I had a problem a few years ago with my stomach and it resulted in my breath ponging…” Something like that, with empathy and sensitivity, you will have helped him confront this rather embarrassing complaint. He can then do something to tackle it. It might even be the case of eating more – not eating enough often triggers your stomach to produce rather noxious gases! Good luck!

Hi Bernice

Could you help? I’ve been seeing one of the guys who works in my office. I’m 23 and he’s 37 and I know he’s a lot older than me, but well, the sex is great. I’ve been seeing him since the Christmas do, where we pulled each other. He likes taking pictures of me when we’re in the bedroom on his mobile phone and I’m petrified that he’s showing his mates. My uncle works on the skip wagons and if he saw me with no clothes on, I’d be so upset. My fella says he’s not showing anyone, but I can’t say I entirely believe him. He had a girlfriend before me, and I know for a fact he showed a video on his phone of her doing something to him to his mates in the pub. I like him but I’m so anxious. What shall I do?

Desperate, Edinburgh

Blimey Charlie. That’s a bad situation to find yourself in. OK, it all boils down to, can you trust him? And to be blunt, Desperate, it sounds like a resounding ‘No’. He’s a lot older than you and he’s sounds like he likes trying his look with a pretty, yound thing like yourself. He’s got a lot of powerful material on that phone and for a relationship so young, I wouldn’t be happy with him carrying all that around. He probably hasn’t shown your uncle, as your uncle would have probably walloped him. My advice is to tell him that you want to continue seeing him but until the relationship develops into a completely trusting one, you want him to wipe all the photos off his phone. If he’s worth it, he’ll comply. And don’t beat yourself up about it – there’s nothing wrong with doing what you’ve done. Next time, just wait until your 100% comfortable with doing it.

To paraphrase The Life of Brian: “He’s not a skip hire driver! He’s a very naughty boy!”

This is what we imagine is echoing through Hartlepool Council Halls as we speak, as they have admitted that they are fast losing patience with skip companies who repeatedly disregard the areas they are delivering to.

Firms caught driving across grassed areas when delivering or collecting skips have been told they could face prosecution unless they start sticking to the laws of the road.

Any motor vehicle that leaves the highway by more than 15 metres is in breach of the Road Traffic Act and could face action by the police.

For its part, the council can prosecute on the grounds of criminal damage if it can prove that an offending vehicle belongs to a particular company.

The warning comes after a grassed area in Bodmin Grove, in the Throston area of Hartlepool, was left in a churned up mess after a skip wagon drove over it.

Environmental Enforcement manager Ian Burton said: “Damage such as this leaves grassed areas looking unsightly and can be very costly to repair.

“At the end of the day, it is totally avoidable.”

Mr Burton called on companies to take steps to ensure that their drivers understood their responsibilities.

He added: “We’d much rather work with local companies than prosecute them, and that is why we are calling on them to accept their responsibilities.

“Vehicles should not be leaving the road in any circumstance, and if they are unable to put a skip directly outside a house then it should be placed safely next to the road as near to the property in question as possible.

“We are pleased to note that one local company has recently issued advice to its drivers about what is acceptable, and we would now urge other firms to follow suit.”

So, skip hire drivers of the UK – shape up! Keep off the grass, and keep the council off your back!

Is nothing sacred? Somehow, thieves have stolen a council skip placed to help residents get rid of household waste left uncollected because of the snow.

The large yellow skip was placed at Shaw, north Manchester so people living in side roads which waste trucks had not able to reach could empty their rubbish. But when residents arrived on Monday they discovered it had been stolen over the weekend.

Cllr Mark Alcock, environment spokesman, said: “Whoever took this skip would have needed a specialist truck to take it away.

“We are currently checking nearby CCTV cameras to see if such a vehicle has been seen in the area.

“If the thieves are tracked down then they will be prosecuted.

“It is very disappointing. People are doing so much to help others while some selfish individuals are helping themselves.”

Sad times. Whoever did this had access to a skip wagon – so there will be a skip firm somewhere who is responsible for this. Guys, let’s clean up skip hire and get rid of these cowboys who continue to dirty the name of our industry.

Just a quick word of congrats to Skip Hire companies across the UK. Although some places were hit by the sudden snowfall than others, I was heartened to see plenty of skip wagons on the road regardless of the weather. In fact saw this lovely little pic of a skip covered in snow, and thought it was a good symbol of our hardwork throughout the bad weather. Well done guys!

Love him or hate him, blonde haired, bumbling, posho Boris Johnson wants to introduce a new scheme to the UK which rewards recycling efforts by handing out shopping vouchers to people.

Boris Johnson hopes the scheme rewards recycling households as he aims to cut the amount of rubbish going to landfill sites to zero within 15 years.

Johnson is backing a London-based trial of an American scheme called Recycle Bank, which gives householders shopping vouchers or donations to charity to the value of how much they recycle.

Johnson estimates a typical London household would make £14 a month under the scheme, one of a series of proposals contained in a draft municipal waste strategy.

Figures show the capital’s recycling rates lags behind both the rest of the UK and other international cities.

Johnson, who chairs the London Waste and Recycling Board, wants to save £90m per year through more recycling, better coordination and greater investment in less polluting technologies to either dispose of waste or convert it into a local source of energy.

Just 25% of the 4m tonnes of household waste generated each year by Londoners is recycled, with half going to landfill sites. The remainder goes to incinerators.

The cost of managing this waste is approximately £600m every year, with wide variations between boroughs’ recycling rates.

Johnson is writing to all London borough leaders to ask them to redouble their efforts in recycling and – with landfill rates set to increase from current associated costs of around £245m to £307m by 2013 – reminding them of pressure on future council tax bills if they fail to act.

The Tory mayor believes the carrot, rather than the stick, should be among the strategies applied to improve London’s ranking by rewarding those who opt to recycle rather than imposing penalties on those who don’t.

The American Recycle Bank scheme is in line with Conservative interest in the “nudge” theories of American sociologists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, and has so far been adopted by Tory-led Windsor and Maidenhead council.

Other incentives to reduce landfill include schemes to encourage shoppers to bring their own reusable bags in an attempt to turn London into Britain’s first plastic bag-free city in time for the Olympics in 2012.

The mayor wants the capital to be recycling at least 45% of its municipal waste (which includes street litter, grass cuttings and some waste from small businesses as well as household waste) by 2015, rising to 60% by 2031, sending “zero municipal waste” directly to landfill by 2025, with any residue from other waste processing being banned from landfill by 2031.