The director of a west Oxfordshire company has been ordered to pay £6,000 costs and banned from being a company director for five years after a prosecution by the Environment Agency.
Thomas Smyth, of Solihull, Birmingham, sole director of Selectface Ltd, which ran a landfill site at Enstone Quarry, near Chipping Norton, was found guilty at Witney Magistrates' Court of failing to comply with a closure notice and three counts of breaches of waste management licence conditions at the site in 2005 and 2006.
Selectface failed to submit a pollution prevention and control permit application, which would have allowed it to continue disposing of waste at the landfill site, by a November 2004 deadline.
advertisement
The company also failed to pay annual subsistence fees to the agency for 2005 and the agency required a report to be submitted to ensure continued proper management of the landfill, but Selectface failed to do so.
Joe Cuthbertson, investigating officer for the Environment Agency, said: "Mr Smyth's company was responsible for a series of offences.
"Landfill sites such as Enstone Quarry can produce methane, a greenhouse gas, and leachate, a contaminated liquid, which pose a risk to groundwater.
"Landfills require extensive management and environmental monitoring. Mr Smyth's failure to submit this important data means we have been unable to measure the site's effect on the environment.
"We will now be carrying out and funding our own monitoring of the site."
Posted by: Mr Ison, England on 6:56pm Fri 9 May 08
Following the logic for litigation purposes.
The water companies could be sued for neglgently supplying contaminated drinking water.
Or else they could be sued for knowingly supplying contaminated drinking water.
If they cannot be sued for either there is your public health concern.
If the defendant is found to have contaminated the water table see the public health concern above,if the defendant is found to have not contaminated the water table to a degree that is a public health concern then should he be prosected at all?
Now consider the dumping of toxic ssh in a lake,which by definition is the exposed water table.
Consider that and the foreign owned company running the incinerator at a cost to you.
Following the logic for litigation purposes.
The water companies could be sued for neglgently supplying contaminated drinking water.
Or else they could be sued for knowingly supplying contaminated drinking water.
If they cannot be sued for either there is your public health concern.
If the defendant is found to have contaminated the water table see the public health concern above,if the defendant is found to have not contaminated the water table to a degree that is a public health concern then should he be prosected at all?
Now consider the dumping of toxic ssh in a lake,which by definition is the exposed water table.
Consider that and the foreign owned company running the incinerator at a cost to you.
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
Print
Email this
Comment
