Tip firm ordered to stop dumping waste at landfill
THE Environment Agency has ordered a tip operator to stop dumping at a controversial landfill site until it reduces the amount of waste there.
The order effectively halts operations at Gilberdyke landfill site.
-
It is a victory for campaigners who object to the size and smell of the dump that towers over the M62.
Tipping without an Environment Agency permit would leave operator City Plant Ltd at risk of prosecution.
But the company is taking legal advice and has two months to appeal.
Environment Agency regulatory officer Matthew Woollin said: "It's important we control the amount of waste at the site because we issue the permit based on a set figure to protect the environment.
"We understand the community's concerns and we are working hard to resolve this issue."
Roy Hunt, chairman of Newport Parish Council, said: "Newport Parish Council has received numerous complaints from residents concerning various aspects relating to this landfill site.
"The enforcement notice that I understand has been issued requires the owner of the site to comply with the height conditions applied by the Environment Agency and to stop tipping further waste.
"I am sure that residents will be very pleased with this action being taken, but will also be aware that this notice can be appealed and that further applications from the owner to increase the current height limit are likely to be made to both the Environment Agency and East Riding Council."
The Environment Agency says the notice was served because the operator has not complied with its environmental permit.
The order states City Plant will have three months to reduce the levels at its own expense and will then have to demonstrate to the Environment Agency there is capacity left in the site to start taking in waste.
If it appeals against the order and produces a plan that satisfies the Environment Agency, the banning order can be lifted.
If no adequate plan is produced, tipping is banned during the appeal process.
Kevin Wanless, a consultant for City Plant Ltd, said: "We're in negotiations and it is in the hands of our legal team. There are other issues regarding the site, but they have been overcome. The mud arising from the site has been resolved.
"This is about reducing the height of the tip."
He declined to comment about whether City Plant would appeal or what steps it might take to reduce the amount of waste at the tip.
The Environment Agency regulates the site. But East Riding Council deals with its planning consent and so monitors issues such as the height of the dump and the smell.
61 Comments
View all
by Dee_SBL
Monday, February 20 2012, 12:20PM
“Absolutely disgusting!”
by supertramp101
Sunday, February 05 2012, 9:11PM
“Lucky you we dont get any snow days at all. I did try to private msg you but its the first time ive done so wasnt sure if you would get it. Was the mudhills picture on it??? just message back that way if you want. Its still this here too. I can live with it for a bit its the ice that gets me not the snow. Have you seen the heap does it look like mount??”
by s7a6y1
Sunday, February 05 2012, 7:56PM
“ha ha ha ha ha ha lmao seems some people don't know when to give it a rest. Skateboard was an old one of the kids supertramp101. Is the private msg u?? It came up diff name. Its still thick here I hope some stays, roads are clear tho, so u know what that means I'll have to go to work tomorrow! Weve been cheated we get 1 snow day and dont even get chance to take it.”
by supertramp101
Sunday, February 05 2012, 12:12PM
“Dear oh dear it a rough one then. I for one certianly hope it all clears before tonight. Sorry to be a spoilsport. How did you come by the skateboard? We tried it last year on an old ironing board at Fridaythorpe. It was 50/50 but then we also had our special goggles on at the time. It was funny doing it, but the next day was a nightmare. John wayne is putting it lightly lol.”
by s7a6y1
Sunday, February 05 2012, 11:59AM
“Special goggs got the better of me in the end. Do u think it'ss stay or be gone today. Just been out in it the fog is definatley not helping my aftermath today. It a small world tho”
by supertramp101
Sunday, February 05 2012, 11:52AM
“s7a6y1 dd you attemp it? or did the special goggles get the better of you I wonder , seems I missed a bit he he !”
by legal1966
Sunday, February 05 2012, 10:06AM
“Right inthedog shed. You obviously have problems. My profession relates to the information contained in this publication. I have never claimed to be a solicitor, although Law is part of my profession. I have a specific field to which I work in. I was notified by a colleague to some information being given across the web, and the manner to which it was being done. I know most parties involved in this issue, despite not having met them directly. I do however know that the person I was directly replying to in my post is a well-liked man, and I can understand his feeling towards the matter. However I do know that all documentation is being tracked, copied and sourced, even though some has been removed. There have been concerns raised over some actions that have been and are threatened to be carried out.
As for your need to challenging me, what for? Replying to a blog I have in interest in. Forgive me I thought these places where designed for people to give their opinions and thoughts on matters. If you have a problem with Marioman1, LAWSUIT and HaynesVW, then you should have taken the matter up with them directly on the article they were posting on. After looking into the matter, I see you did not. Some PCSO's have been cycling with cameras on for some time now. The cyclist is not the first.
This is the first story I have ever added a post to, I did so for a specified reason. It matters not what you think, I already know who you are! You are the one with the multiple usernames. I suggest you find yourself a hobby or something to relieve your obvious anger problem.”
by s7a6y1
Saturday, February 04 2012, 10:09PM
“blimey man give it a rest ive read all the post on this one and the cycle one and reall doe's it matter reading all the ones on this one i would say writer 1966 has an interest here.. The challenge you refer to to me sounds like u taking t personally go in peace i dont think anymore anger is needed here theres been too much allready my friend.”
by inthedogshed
Saturday, February 04 2012, 9:40PM
“s7a6y1
On the Simon Mason story 'three' early posters were Marioman1, LAWSUIT and HaynesVW.
Marioman1 said he was a psychologist, LAWSUIT said he was a solicitor and I'm not sure who HaynesVW was supposed to be except that a number of posters sussed out that they were the same person, I assume because of their really bad spelling and grammar skills which a solicitor and psychologist just wouldn't have. And now we have Legal1966 making the same sort of claims and the same errors.
I didn't post on the story because by the time I read it, the posts had got really silly.
I haven't posted about the rubbish dump because I don't live in the area. But I did read this story and the comments and was struck by how similar Legal1966 is to the 'other three'. Even down to his denials.
He is making a lot of claims about himself and needs to be challenged.”
by s7a6y1
Saturday, February 04 2012, 9:03PM
“Icalld a skteboard without wheel pegs ha but i'd need me special goggles on you know the ones that give you courage”