Agenda item

Members received a presentation by Mr Rob Wise (Environment Manager, Environment Agency, Kent and South London Area) and Mr Jon Griffin (Environment Agency, Team Leader, Kent Waste Team) concerning the Waste4Fuel site at Cornwall Drive, Orpington. A copy of the presentation is at Appendix B to these minutes. 

The EA currently regulate over 700 waste facilities. They manage risk (i.e. put in place control and management measures), supply permits and issue suspension notices as required. The following was explained:

·  they cannot control the location of sites;

·  they are concerned with environmental impact and waste management issues;

·  many sites are close to commercial and critical infrastructure;

·  the Agency works within a Regulatory Framework and can issue environmental notices and prosecute;

·  the EA have revoked permits and sites have been liquidated as a result;

·  when sites are liquidated the permit is dissolved and they are classed as being “orphaned” (sometimes with a significant amount of waste to be disposed of and only when a developer acquires the land is the waste removed and the site cleaned);

·  when a site is orphaned a new permit can be granted to a new landowner if criteria are met;

·  sometimes the new position with an orphaned site can be worse; and

·  a permit is only completely withdrawn as a last resort. 

For the Waste4Fuel site, it was necessary for the EA to ensure:

• compliance with the permit;
• that the fire risk is managed; and
• that an operator is maintained on site to ensure it does not become orphaned.

Update on enforcement action

In 2012 there was significant concern about the waste volume on site and a number of enforcement actions were taken including serving of a compliance notice. In early 2013 concern grew for the waste volume and fire risk and an action plan was agreed on 1^st March 2013. EA inspection frequency significantly increased and there was community engagement at a residents meeting on 13^th May 2013. There were also regular meetings with local Members and engagement with the local MPs. The agency also works in partnership with the London Fire Brigade.

A fire occurred at the site on 18^th March 2013 due to self combustion. On 22^nd April 2013 a Suspension Notice was issued limiting activities to an inward waste delivery of 200 tonnes per week and a minimum outward delivery of 600 tonnes per week. The site was to be cleared of combustible waste by June 2013. There was an emphasis on maintaining a regulatory grip on the site whilst reducing the fire risk and avoiding it becoming orphaned. By June 2013 waste levels were slowly reducing. But in July 2013 there appeared to be a behaviour change and waste volumes (and fire risk) began to significantly increase.

The Environment Agency sought legal advice. In August 2013 an application was made for an Order in the High Court against the operating company and Director. An initial hearing on 29^th August 2013 resulted in an interim order with a full hearing yet to take place. By 7^th September 2013 it was necessary for a Fire break 1 to have been provided. A deadline of 19^th September was set for Shredded Waste and by 30th September a Fire break 2 was to have been installed.

Such an approach has the following benefits:

1. the Order is also against the Director of the Company;
2. there is a significant penalty for non compliance;
3. the likelihood of an orphaned site is reduced; and
4. the fire risk is continually managed. 

It was intended that the full Court Order would compel Waste4Fuel to comply with the notice issued i.e. removal of all waste on site. However, the EA want the operator to remain on site so that the fire risk can be continually managed in conjunction with the EA.

In discussion, it was confirmed that London Fire Brigade were bearing their costs of site attendance to deal with any incident. Residents were concerned about the length of time legal processes were taking and there was a desire to see matters expedited. The EA indicated that it was necessary to proceed via the regulatory process.

On keeping residents briefed, the EA had liaised with the local residents association. There had also been communications with MPs and Councillors. Upon request, it was possible for residents to be added to the EA’s mailing list. Additionally residents could provide details of any concerns via the EA hotline.

Noting that Waste4Fuel were ranked by the EA at Band A during their initial period of operation, Councillor Fookes sought to understand how the operator’s performance could worsen so significantly. He asked if there had been a change of Director. He felt that the problems had continued for too long. He asked whether the site should not be closed. Members were advised that closure would leave an orphan site. If circumstances changed and another operator were to submit a permit application then consideration would be given to a new licence provided the operator was suitable. Concerning the change in operator performance, it was not possible to provide a specific reason for this – there could be a number of reasons.

Councillor John Ince, on behalf of residents, felt it was very disappointing that the situation had continued for so long. He felt that it was necessary to think about an end scenario and for the permit to be removed from the company. He suggested the company would continue to prevaricate regardless of legal action and would not make a swift improvement.

It was indicated to the Chairman that it was unlikely a new operator would apply to operate at the site should Waste4Fuel’s permit be revoked. It was also confirmed that the EA performed a regulatory function and were not in a position to market or encourage another operator to take over the site.

Councillor Bennett asked why it had taken the EA 18 months to take action. The agency had powers. Members were advised that it was reasonable to work with operators to achieve compliance. It was also confirmed to Councillor Bennett that the EA took account of previous convictions related to Company Directors when granting a licence.

The Chairman referred to concerns over the inclusion of non-construction waste which would assist combustion e.g. plastics. It was confirmed that plastics would be combustible. As such it would be valuable as a fuel for power generation at certain European sites. Councillor Judi Ellis concluded that it might therefore be uneconomic to take much of the waste to a country such as Germany. Much of the waste would be low grade and would have to be land-filled.