£1.2m fine for water company, Anglian Water following Environment Agency prosecution. Anglian Water has been hit with fines totalling £1,221,000 after it admitted to causing pollution incidents in two separate court cases this week.
The water company was ordered to pay £871,000 after a catalogue of system and maintenance failures caused several incidents of pollution across Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire, and Northamptonshire across a five-month spell, between May and September 2019.
The list of process failures included reporting delays, faulty screening and a general breakdown in planning and maintenance, all of which caused damaging blockages and pollution. After one particular incident, a subsequent biological survey showed dead aquatic invertebrates for 1,500 metres. The court also heard how at one site an unchecked build-up of ‘unflushables’ such as cotton buds and sanitary pads caused a blockage resulting in discharge of settled sludge into the treated sewage.
The site was originally fitted with a screen to prevent blockages in the process but was removed in 2018. The court heard that increased cleaning had not taken place and no steps taken to reduce the risk of blockages caused by the removal of the screen.
The water company was also ordered to pay £37,605.13 in costs at Loughborough Magistrates Court on 12 September 2022.
Big fines for water companies causing pollution
In a separate court case, heard at Cambridge Magistrates Court, Anglian Water was sentenced to pay £350,000 after a pumped sewer at Bourn Brook at Caldecott, Cambridgeshire, burst for the sixth time in several years. Officers visiting the site in September 2019 found ammonia and low oxygen levels in the water, posing a potential risk to wildlife at the site. Despite efforts from Anglian Water to stop the polluted water from spreading, its methods proved insufficient and a total of 4km of the watercourse was affected for at least five days.
Since 2004 the sewer, which is only 1.5km long, had burst 6 times. The court found that Anglian Water had been too slow in putting in place potential mitigation measures. They only located air valves, designed to reduce stress on the sewer, after the incident took place. These valves had been in place for at least 25 years.
Anglian Water pleaded guilty to causing poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter to enter inland freshwaters without an environmental permit, and were told to pay £28,025.66 in costs as well as a victim surcharge of £181.
“Serious pollution is a serious crime and I welcome these sentences from the courts.
“The Environment Agency will pursue any water company that fails to uphold the law or protect nature, and will continue to press for the strongest possible penalties for those which do not.”
Sir James Bevan, Chief Executive of the Environment Agency
Vehicle injured guard which has resulted in a meat production company being fined £440,000. The security guard at an abattoir was seriously injured by a vehicle passing through the site gate.
The 63-year-old security guard, who was working for an independent security company, was on duty at the gated entrance of the Dunbia (UK) abattoir at Hatherleigh, near Okehampton, Devon early on the morning of November 29, 2018.
Her duties included operating the gates to allow delivery vehicles to enter and exit the site. She sustained serious leg and head injuries requiring surgery when she was hit by a vehicle towing a trailer leaving the site. She was holding the gate open at the time.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that the system of work was unsafe and that the company’s risk assessments did not extend to the security guards. Risks had not been adequately assessed or controlled.
Although there was a high volume of vehicle movements on site there was no segregation between the vehicle routes and pedestrians on site.
Dunbia (UK), of Castle Street, Exeter, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 3(1) of the Health & Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. the company was fined £440,000 and ordered to pay costs of £27,016 and a victim surcharge of £170 at Plymouth Magistrates Court on 12 October 2022.
“Employers have a legal duty to ensure that the health and safety of their employees, contractors and members of the public are not put at risk.
“This incident could have been avoided had the company assessed the risks from vehicle movements and implemented safety measures including segregating vehicles and pedestrians.”
HSE inspector Victoria Buchanan
Does your workplace transport keep pedestrians safe?
Vehicle Safety
When considering the risks from vehicle manoeuvring, employers must ensure that vehicles have large enough windscreens (with wipers where necessary) and external mirrors to provide an all-round field of vision. It is often worthwhile adding extra mirrors to reduce blind spots for drivers. Side mirrors can allow drivers of larger vehicles to see cyclists and pedestrians alongside their vehicles and can be effective in improving visibility around the vehicle from the driving position. These mirrors are fitted to larger road-going vehicles as standard.
Drivers should not place items in the windscreen area or in the way of mirrors or monitors, where they might impede visibility from the driving position. The area of the windscreen that is kept clear by the wipers should not be obscured, and nor should the side windows. Windows and mirrors will also normally need to be kept clean and in good repair. Dirt or cracks can make windows or mirrors less effective.
Some types of vehicles (such as straddle carriers, large shovel loaders and some large quarry vehicles) often have poor visibility from the cab. Visibility can be poor to the side or front of a vehicle as well as behind and loads on vehicles can severely limit the visibility from the driving position.
Lift trucks and compact dumper vehicles in particular can have difficulty with forward visibility when they are transporting bulky loads. Employers should recognise these risks in their risk assessment and think about ways to minimise them.
Vehicle CCTV
Closed-circuit television (CCTV) may help drivers to see clearly behind or around the vehicle. CCTV can cover most blind spots and the cost of fitting CCTV systems has fallen since the technology was first developed. Companies who have fitted CCTV have found that it can reduce the number of reversing accidents, so the systems usually pay for themselves in a few years.
Colour systems can provide a clearer image where there is little contrast (for example, outside on an overcast day). However, black-and-white systems normally provide a better image in lower light or darkness, and usually come with infra-red, which can be more effective than standard cameras at night.
Monitors should have adjustable contrast, brightness and resolution controls to make them useful in the different light conditions in which they will be used. Drivers may need to use a hood to shield any monitor from glare.
If possible, fit the camera for a CCTV system high up in the middle of the vehicle’s rear (one camera), or in the upper corners (two cameras). This will provide a greater field of vision and a better angle for the driver to judge distance and provide. It also keeps the camera clear of dust and spray, and out of the reach of thieves or vandals.
However, CCTV systems do have some limitations which employers should consider:
If the vehicle leaves a darker area to a more strongly lit area (for example, driving out of a building) the system may need time to adjust to the brightness.
A dirty lens will make a camera much less effective.
Drivers may find it difficult to judge heights and distances.
Drivers should not be complacent about safety even with CCTV systems installed. They should be trained in proper use of the equipment and employers have a duty to provide such training and instruction.
Vehicles Reversing
Reversing alarms may be drowned out by other noise or may be so common on a busy site that pedestrians do not take any notice. It can also be hard to know exactly where an alarm is coming from, and people who are less able to hear are also at greater risk. Alarms can also disturb nearby residents. However, reversing alarms may be appropriate (based on the risk assessment) but might be most effectively used with other measures, such as warning lights.
A Bernard Matthews worker paralysed in an accident has resulted in the company being prosecuted. Bernard Mathew’s Food Ltd has been fined £400,000 following two separate incidents where employees were seriously injured.
Colin Frewin was left permanently paralysed and spent six months in hospital following an incident at the company’s Suffolk manufacturing plant.
Worker paralysed
Mr Frewin suffered multiple serious injuries, including a pierced left lung, several broken ribs, four fractured vertebrae and a spinal bleed. He was put in an induced coma for three weeks and is now classed as a T6 paraplegic and has been diagnosed with autonomic dysreflexia (AD).
Chelmsford Crown Court heard how 54-year-old Mr Frewin suffered the injuries on 28 January 2020. He had been tasked with cleaning a large screw conveyor used to move poultry turkeys along and chill them. While working on the gantry between the spin chillers he noticed a turkey stuck at the bottom of it.
As he attempted to dislodge the turkey using a squeegee, Mr Frewin was drawn into the machine. It was only when a colleague noticed Mr Frewin was missing from the gantry and heard his cries for help, the emergency stop was pulled.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) investigation found an unsafe system of work meant the chillers remained running as Mr Frewin went to dislodge the turkey.
In a victim personal statement, Mr Frewin described how his horrific injuries left him feeling “isolated” and in need of daily care.
“I will never walk again and so I will be in a wheelchair permanently. I now have a suprapubic catheter, which was inserted via an operation. The district nurse has to give me bowel care every day and visits me daily at home. I also suffer from AD – a condition which is life threatening, as my body doesn’t register if I’m ill. I have moved from my flat overlooking the sea, to a bungalow. However, I miss seeing the sea and being close to the seafront and all the amenities. I feel isolated as I cannot go out when I want as I need people to assist me. The accident has affected my life and my family’s lives. When I talk about the incident, I sometimes find this upsetting and then have restless nights.”
There was another incident at the same plant five months earlier, on 12 August 2019, when a turkey deboning line had to be shut down after developing a fault.
As a result, 34-year-old Mr Adriano Gama, along with the rest of the employees, were moved to a surplus production line to continue the process.
Whilst working on the surplus production line, one of the wings became stuck in the belt under the machine. Mr Gama attempted to push it out of the way, but as he did do, his gloved hand became caught in the exposed sprocket of the conveyer and was drawn into the machine.
He was eventually freed and taken to hospital having suffered a broken arm and severe damage to the muscles in his forearm.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found that on the day of the incident pre-start checks were only completed on the production lines that were regularly used.
Therefore, when workers were asked to move to the surplus deboning line there was no system in place to ensure that it was checked prior to it being put into operation.
The investigation uncovered that two safety guards had been removed and a team leader responsible for the production lines had verbally reported this issue to the engineering team, but it was not followed up by either party.
Bernard Mathews Prosecution
Bernard Matthews Food Ltd of Sparrowhawk Road, Halesworth in Suffolk pleaded guilty to breaching section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The company was fined £400,000 and ordered to pay costs of £15,000.
“Both incidents could have been avoided – the consequences were devastating for Mr Frewin in particular.
“If Bernard Matthews had acted to identify and manage the risks involved and put a safe system of work in place they could have easily been prevented.
“Fundamentally, you should not clean a machine while it is running.
“Companies need to ensure that risk assessments cover activities including cleaning and blockages, and that where appropriate, robust isolation and lock off mechanisms are in place for these activities.
“Prior to use you can put in place some pre-start checks and if faults such as missing guards are identified they need to be formally reported, tracked, rectified and closed out.”
HSE Principal Inspector Adam Hills
Do you provide suitable equipment to your workers?
Worker Equipment
The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, often abbreviated to PUWER, place duties on people and companies who own, operate or have control over work equipment. PUWER also places responsibilities on businesses and organisations whose employees use work equipment, whether owned by them or not. PUWER requires that equipment provided for use at work is:
suitable for the intended use
safe for use, maintained in a safe condition and inspected to ensure it is correctly installed and does not subsequently deteriorate
used only by people who have received adequate information, instruction and training
accompanied by suitable health and safety measures, such as protective devices and controls. These will normally include guarding, emergency stop devices, adequate means of isolation from sources of energy, clearly visible markings and warning devices
used in accordance with specific requirements, for mobile work equipment and power presses
If your business or organisation uses work equipment or is involved in providing work equipment for others to use (e.g. for hire), you must manage the risks from that equipment. This means you must:
ensure the equipment is constructed or adapted to be suitable for the purpose it is used or provided for
take account of the working conditions and health and safety risks in the workplace when selecting work equipment
ensure work equipment is only used for suitable purposes
ensure work equipment is maintained in an efficient state, in efficient working order and in good repair
where a machine has a maintenance log, keep this up to date
where the safety of work equipment depends on the manner of installation, it must be inspected after installation and before being put into use
where work equipment is exposed to deteriorating conditions liable to result in dangerous situations, it must be inspected to ensure faults are detected in good time so the risk to health and safety is managed
ensure that all people using, supervising or managing the use of work equipment are provided with adequate, clear health and safety information. This will include, where necessary, written instructions on its use and suitable equipment markings and warnings
ensure that all people who use, supervise or manage the use of work equipment have received adequate training, which should include the correct use of the equipment, the risks that may arise from its use and the precautions to take
where the use of work equipment is likely to involve a specific risk to health and safety (eg woodworking machinery), ensure that the use of the equipment is restricted to those people trained and appointed to use it
take effective measures to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery. This will normally be by fixed guarding but where routine access is needed, interlocked guards (sometimes with guard locking) may be needed to stop the movement of dangerous parts before a person can reach the danger zone. Where this is not possible, such as with the blade of a circular saw, it must be protected as far as possible and a safe system of work used. These protective measures should follow the hierarchy laid down in PUWER regulation 11(2) and the PUWER Approved Code of Practice and guidance or, for woodworking machinery, the Safe use of woodworking machinery: Approved Code of Practice and guidance
take measures to prevent or control the risks to people from parts and substances falling or being ejected from work equipment, or the rupture or disintegration of work equipment
ensure that the risks from very hot or cold temperatures from the work equipment or the material being processed or used are managed to prevent injury
ensure that work equipment is provided with appropriately identified controls for starting, stopping and controlling it, and that these control systems are safe
where appropriate, provide suitable means of isolating work equipment from all power sources (including electric, hydraulic, pneumatic and gravitational energy)
ensure work equipment is stabilised by clamping or otherwise to avoid injury
take appropriate measures to ensure maintenance operations on work equipment can be carried out safely while the equipment is shut down, without exposing people undertaking maintenance operations to risks to their health and safety
New Equipment for Workers
When providing new work equipment for use at work, you must ensure it conforms with the essential requirements of any relevant product supply law (for new machinery this means the Supply of Machinery (Safety) Regulations 2008). You must check it:
has appropriate conformity marking and is labelled with the manufacturer’s details
comes with a Declaration of Conformity
is provided with instructions in English
is free from obvious defects – and that it remains so during its working life
A bonfire prosecution of a Kent groundwork contractor has resulted in the company being fined. A petrol fire resulted in injuries to an employee when petrol was thrown on a bonfire.
On 24 June 2020, a 26-year-old groundworker employed by Kent County Surfacing Limited was working on a new residential development in Ramsgate, Kent when a co-worker used petrol on a bonfire. The groundworker was unaware of this and after he was instructed to light the bonfire, it engulfed him in flames as the petrol vapour ignited. The worker suffered serious burns and underwent two skin graft operations to his left hand, left arm, left side of torso and both his legs.
Groundworkers help prepare a construction site and ensure it is ready for the structural work to start.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company had failed to appropriately supervise their operatives and failed to provide them with the appropriate information and instruction, so far as is reasonably practicable to ensure work was carried out without risks to health or safety.
Does your workplace have fire safety precautions in place?
At Folkestone Magistrates on 10 October, Kent County Surfacing Ltd of 7 Mariners View, Deal, Kent, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulations 15 (8) of the Construction (Design & Management) Regulations 2015. They were fined £10,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,333.42.
“The operative’s injuries are life changing and could have easily been fatal.
“This serious incident and devastation should have been avoided if those in control of the work provided the appropriate supervision, information and instructions to their workers.”
An uninsured employer prosecuted for failing to have appropriate insurance in place has been fined by Luton Magistrates Court.
Exclusive Oriental Classics Ltd and its director, Mr Kian Hoo Tay, appeared at Luton Magistrates Court on 10 October for failing to have Employers’ Liability (Compulsory) Insurance (ELCI).
The court heard an investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) discovered the failure when one of the company’s employees was injured at work on 1 March 2022.
Exclusive Oriental Classics Ltd and Mr Hoo Tay had failed to renew the insurance policy that expired on 13 May 2021.
Prosecution
Exclusive Oriental Classics Ltd, of Bellfield Avenue, Harrow, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 1(1) of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory) Insurance Act 1969, fined £1,650, a victim surcharge of £165 and ordered to pay costs of £1750.
The Director, Mr Kian Hoo Tay, of same address pleaded guilty to breaching Section 1(1) of the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory) Insurance Act 1969, fined £1,650, a victim surcharge of £165 and ordered to pay costs of £1750.
“Every employer needs to ensure that they have Employers’ Liability (Compulsory) Insurance in place to ensure against liability for injury or disease to their employees arising out of their employment.
“Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action against those that fall below the required standards”.
HSE inspector Emma Page
Do you have insurance for your business?
Employer Liability Insurance
Most employers are required by the law to insure against liability for injury or disease to their employees arising out of their employment. The Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 requires your employer to have at least a minimum level of insurance against any such claims. Employers’ liability insurance will cover relevant work injuries or illness whether these are caused on or off site. However, any injuries or illness relating to motor accidents which occur while you are at work may be covered separately by the employer’s motor insurance.
Public liability insurance is different. It covers employers for claims made against them by members of the public or other businesses, but not for claims by employees. While public liability insurance is generally voluntary, employers’ liability insurance is compulsory. Employers can be fined if they do not hold a current employers’ liability insurance policy which complies with the law. Employers must display a copy of this certificate where employees have reasonable access to it. If they do not, they can be fined. Since 1 October 2008, employers have been allowed to satisfy this requirement by displaying the certificate electronically for example on the company’s intranet or website. If your employer chooses this method, they must ensure that you know how and where to find the certificate and you have reasonable access to it. If you require advice on health and safety in your workplace, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.
A refrigeration company has been fined £27,000 after an incident where a worker suffered gantry fall injuries while carrying out work at height.
GEA Refrigeration UK Ltd was replacing a cooler unit located on a gantry 10m above the warehouse floor at an Iceland depot in Swindon on 1 February 2017.
Stock image
This required a section of the gantry floor to be removed. A GEA employee fell 2.5 metres through the gap created by this removal and on to a cherry picker, suffering fractured ribs and internal injuries.
An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found the company had failed to properly plan, co-ordinate and supervise the work, including the removal of the gantry floor to ensure the work was carried out in a safe manner to control the risks of falls.
GEA Refrigeration UK Ltd, of Ludgate Hill, London, pleaded guilty to breaching Section 4(1) of the Work at Height Regulations 2005, and was fined £27,000 and ordered to pay £35,000 costs and a victim surcharge of £170 at Bristol Crown Court on 30 September 2022.
“This incident could have been avoided by identifying and implementing effective control measures and safe working practices.
“Falls from height remain one of the most common causes of work-related injury and fatalities and the risks associated with working at height are well known.”
HSE inspector Leo Diez
In his victim personal statement, the injured worker said: “The effect of the accident on my personal and work life has been huge and has had a lasting effect.”
Work at Height Regulations
Falls from height are one of the biggest causes of workplace fatalities and major injuries. Common causes are falls from ladders and through fragile roofs. The purpose of The Work at Height Regulations 2005 is to prevent death and injury caused by a fall from height. If you are an employer or you control work at height (for example facilities managers or building owners who may contract others to work at height) the Regulations apply to you.
Employers and those in control of any work at height activity must make sure work is properly planned, supervised and carried out by competent people. This includes using the right type of equipment for working at height. Low-risk, relatively straightforward tasks will require less effort when it comes to planning. Employers and those in control must first assess the risks by carrying out a risk assessment. Where you employ 5 or more employees, your risk assessment must be in writing.
Employees have general legal duties to take reasonable care of themselves and others who may be affected by their actions, and to co-operate with their employer to enable their health and safety duties and requirements to be complied with.
Work at Height Guidance
Work at height means work in any place where, if there were no precautions in place, a person could fall a distance liable to cause personal injury. For example, you are working at height if you:
are working on a ladder or a flat roof;
could fall through a fragile surface;
could fall into an opening in a floor or a hole in the ground.
Take a sensible approach when considering precautions for work at height. There may be some low-risk situations where common sense tells you no particular precautions are necessary and the law recognises this.
There is a common misconception that ladders, and stepladders are banned, but this is not the case. There are many situations where a ladder is the most suitable equipment for working at height. Before working at height, you must work through these simple steps:
avoid work at height where it is reasonably practicable to do so;
where work at height cannot be avoided, prevent falls using either an existing place of work that is already safe or the right type of equipment;
minimise the distance and consequences of a fall, by using the right type of equipment where the risk cannot be eliminated.
You should:
do as much work as possible from the ground;
ensure workers can get safely to and from where they work at height;
ensure equipment is suitable, stable and strong enough for the job, maintained and checked regularly;
make sure you don’t overload or overreach when working at height;
take precautions when working on or near fragile surfaces;
provide protection from falling objects;
consider your emergency evacuation and rescue procedures.
Our consultants consider a recent radiation breach prosecution by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). A company which provides diagnostic imaging services, and its radiopharmaceutical subsidiary company, have been given six-figure fines following incidents at two sites in which employees were exposed to radiation levels in excess of the legal annual dose limit.
Radiation Exposure
On 25 March 2019, a vial of a radioactive substance (FDG) leaked after it was installed into a shielded dispensing pot in the dispensing laboratory of Alliance Medical Limited’s (AML) Positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) facility at St James’s University Hospital in Leeds.
Stock image
This resulted in two members of staff becoming contaminated with skin doses in excess of the annual dose limit as defined by the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017.
In a second incident, on 15 November 2019, the same radioactive substance was unknowingly handled during the production process at the Alliance Medical Radiopharmacy Limited (AMRL) facility at Keele University Science Park in Staffordshire.
Consequently, a member of staff was contaminated with a skin dose in excess of the annual dose limit as defined by the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017.
An investigation by Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the incident at the AML Leeds PET-CT centre found that training and instruction was inadequate and supervision below an acceptable standard.
Staff were not made fully aware of the localised instructions and were using personal protective equipment (PPE) unsuitable for work with radioactive material.
Further radiation incident
A separate investigation by HSE found that at AMRL’s facility at Keele University Science Park, the radiation warning system associated with the particular production equipment was not operational at the time of the incident and had not undergone routine maintenance and testing at suitable intervals.
Radiation prosecution
Alliance Medical Limited, based at Iceni Centre, Warwick Technology Park, Warwick, Warwickshire pleaded guilty to breaches of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017, Regulations 12, 18(3), 18(4) and 18(5)a, and were fined £300,000 and ordered to pay costs of £11,382 at Leeds Magistrates’ Court on 29 September 2022.
Alliance Medical Radiopharmacy Limited, also based at Iceni Centre, Warwick Technology Park, Warwick, Warwickshire pleaded guilty to breaches of the Ionising Radiations Regulations 2017, Regulations 9(2)a, 11(1) and 12, and were fined £120,000 and ordered to pay costs of £11,382 in the same court on the same date.
“The workers in both these incidents were exposed to levels of radiation which could potentially impact on their health in the future.
“Employers in the nuclear medicine sector must properly assess the risks to their employees and others and ensure all radiation doses are as low as reasonably practicable.
“Both these incidents could so easily have been avoided by simply carrying out the correct control measures and ensuring safe working practices were followed. Companies should be aware that HSE will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement actions against those that fall below the required standards.”
HSE specialist inspector Elizabeth Reeves
The HSE has published an approved code of practice and guidance for Working with ionising radiation (L121) which is free to download.
Waste offences in Darlington have resulted in a Darlington man been given a two-year community order to incorporate 20 rehabilitation activity days and 300 hours unpaid work after magistrates in Middlesbrough sentenced him for serious waste offences. He was also disqualified from acting as a company director for three years and ordered to pay £490 costs.
John Burnside Jones (26), of Coniscliffe Road, Darlington was sentenced at Teesside Magistrates’ Court on Friday 2 September 2022 having previously pleaded guilty to involvement in illegally misdescribing waste for financial gain.
Courtesy of the Environment Agency
Environment Agency officers visited Jones’ waste operation at the Trinity Works site in Haverton Hill, Billingham in January 2019. They found the business to be processing large volumes of waste types which the site’s environmental permit did not allow. The site was also found to lack the required management systems to deal with the environmental risks. Jones was served with notices requiring details of the site’s waste but failed to respond to these in full.
Further investigations by the Environment Agency revealed that between September 2018 and February 2019, over 6,000 tonnes of unpermitted, combustible waste had been transported to the site from as far away as Bristol. Jones had then transported more than 11,000 tonnes of inert waste soils to a nearby landfill site during the same period. The discrepancy between the volumes of incoming and outgoing waste was a result of Jones mixing incoming waste with soil and stones left from previous site operations and falsely describing this resulting mixture as inert waste.
Inert waste incurs significantly lower landfill tax per tonne and may also be disposed of at a much-reduced rate at landfill facilities without the same level of safeguards and protections as would otherwise be required. By fraudulently misdescribing the waste, Jones was able to make large sums of money by flouting his environmental obligations.
In mitigation, Jones stated that although his company had operated the site, he had limited direct involvement and had been very naïve in relying upon others to run the site for him. He had never previously been in trouble and fully co-operated with the investigation. He admitted that he had never seen the site’s environmental permit and was oblivious to its requirements.
The court ruled that the offending was deliberate and committed for financial gain. At an earlier hearing the permit holder James William Mason, 64, of Camden Street, Stockton-on-Tees had pleaded guilty to allowing the illegal waste activities to be undertaken on his site and was ordered to pay a total of £2,528 in fines and costs.
The conditions of an environmental permit are designed to protect people and the environment. Failure to comply with these legal requirements is a serious offence that can damage the environment, undermine local legitimate environmental permit holders, put jobs at risk and cause misery for local communities.
We welcome sentencing by the Court, which should act as a deterrent to others considering flouting the law.
A spokesperson for the Environment Agency
In most situations waste can only be kept on land if there is an environmental permit in place. The permit will contain a number of conditions which must be observed in order to protect the environment. Failure to comply with the conditions of an environmental permit is a criminal offence which can be committed by the permit holder as well as the person conducting the activities if they are different. Any transfer of waste from one party to another must be accompanied by a controlled waste transfer note which accurately describes the waste and contains the relevant six-digit waste category code.
The OEP was established by the Environment Act 2021. It is an independent public body, with powers to advise ministers and government departments and to hold them and other public authorities to account against their environmental responsibilities and the law. The new body’s independence is protected in law.
The OEP’s work covers England and Northern Ireland, and environmental matters reserved to the UK government. This includes matters in the marine environment where these are dealt with in environmental law or government targets and EIPs.
The body will publish a corporate plan each business year, setting out the resources it has available, and how it plans to make the best use of them through its activities and programmes. Whilst the OEP is a new organisation and relatively small, it intends to act strategically and make hard choices about how it will make the most difference for the environment.
The organisation will publish an annual report to demonstrate how it has used its resources, and what it has achieved during the year. This will include an assessment of whether it has been provided with sufficient sums to carry out its functions effectively.
The New Environmental Strategy
The new environmental strategy sets out how its work will contribute to improvement in the natural environment and environmental protection, including the protection of people from the effects of human activity on the environment. This is the OEP’s first strategy, and the organisation has committed to reviewing it within the first 18 months of its adoption.
The strategy sets out how the OEP will pursue its strategic objectives, ambitions, and the approaches it will take to achieve them. It sets out four objectives:
Government is held to account for delivery of environmental goals and targets, and its plans for environmental improvement
The environment is protected and improved, and people are protected from the effects of human activity on the natural environment, through better design and implementation of environmental laws
Government and other public authorities abide by environmental law so it can protect people and protect and improve the environment as intended
We are effective and efficient, with the authority, relationships, expertise, and voice to play our full part in national environmental governance
The strategy document sets out how the OEP will work, how it will deliver each of its four main functions, prioritise its activities, and work with others. The publication also sets out the organisation’s approach towards acting objectively, impartially, proportionately, and transparently.
The strategy also includes the body’s enforcement policy and provides detailed information about the way it will exercise this function.
The full strategy is available on the OEP’s website.
Recent incidents involving cattle have underlined the potential dangers they pose to walkers, and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has issued a reminder on staying safe near cattle.
The HSE, however, is stressing that serious incidents involving cattle and walkers are rare, while reminding both farmers and walkers to do all they can to keep everyone safe.
Farmers have a legal responsibility to manage their herds to reduce risk to people using footpaths and other rights of way.
The HSE regularly investigates incidents involving cattle and the public. A proportion of these incidents involve serious injury and sometimes death. Incidents often involve cows with calves or bulls, and the person injured often has a dog.
The HSE’s published statistics show that in the five years leading up to March of this year, nine members of the public died after being attacked or trampled by cattle.
Public safety near cattle
Members of the public can find out about steps they can take to safely enjoy the countryside and respect farming activities by following HM Government advice in The Countryside Code.
The advice includes:
Give livestock plenty of space. Their behaviour can be unpredictable, especially when they are with their young.
Keep your dog under effective control to make sure it stays away from livestock. It is good practice wherever you are to keep your dog on a lead around livestock.
Let your dog off the lead if you feel threatened by livestock. Releasing your dog will make it easier for you both to reach safety.
While many thousands of people enjoy the countryside and use the extensive network of footpaths, bridleways, and public access land every day, activities such as walking through or near cattle can be hazardous.
“All large animals can be a risk to people. Even a gentle knock from a cow can result in people being crushed or falling. All cattle should be treated with respect.
“Farmers should carefully consider the animals put into fields with footpaths, for example cows and calves are best kept in alternative fields. Even docile cattle, when under stress, perhaps because of the weather, illness, unusual disturbance, or when maternal or other instincts are aroused, can become aggressive.
“Follow farming industry and HSE guidance to reduce the risk from animals and help people to enjoy your land and pass through smoothly.”
HSE inspector Wayne Owen
Cattle safety advice for farmers and landowners
The HSE has published guidance to promote safety and the Cattle and public access in England and Wales: Advice for farmers, landowners and other livestock keepers (AIS 17EW) is available for free download. A risk assessment can help you identify the hazards and put controls in place to protect yourself, farm staff and the public. You should record the significant findings of your risk assessment and review these regularly and when there are changes.
The NFU has also published guidance to help farmers stay safe around cattle which is available on its website.
Key considerations for farmers and landowners include:
No dairy bulls should be kept in fields with a public right of way (PROW) at any time.
Where possible avoid putting cattle, especially cows with calves, in fields with PROW.
Where there is a need to keep cattle with calves or a bull in a field with PROW do all that you can to keep animals and people separated. Consider the use of fencing (permanent or temporary e.g. electric fencing). This is particularly important at busy times or where PROW are heavily used.
Assess the temperament of any cattle before putting them into a field with PROW.
If cattle, especially cows with calves, do need to be put into fields with PROW, keep this period to a minimum.
Position feed and water troughs away from the PROW and away from PROW entrances and exists to the field.
Put in place a system to monitor any cattle in fields with PROW at least on a daily basis. It may be worth recording this.
Consider culling any animal that shows signs of aggression.
Any animal that has shown any sign of aggression must not be kept in a field with PROW.
Clearly sign post all PROW across the farm. Display signage at all entrances to the field stating what is in the field (cows with calves / bulls).
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
