Saturday, 28 April 2012

No progress on the tip from the EA or ERYC but residents are starting litigation

As the Environment Agency and East Riding Council had done nothing to stop the nuisance, a meeting of affected residents was called. This was held in Newport village hall and the hall was crammed to overflowing. A true indication of the anger felt by the local community plain for all to see.

The meeting was vociferous but kept reasonably to order. The chief outcome of the meeting was that a poll of the residents present indicated strong support for taking legal action against those responsible for creating and sustaining the nuisance(s) suffered by the community. Candidates for consideration including:
The owner(s) of the tip both when the old tip was uncapped and the owners at the present date,
The operators of the tip in all their guises during the same period,
The East Riding Council for not stopping the nuisance and not enforcing the planning conditions,
The Environment Agency for not adequately monitoring the operation of the tip, allowing the height to be raised above permitted levels, allowing pollution of the local environment - the list goes on.

A legal firm Public Interest Lawyers are being consulted with a view to proceeding on a no win no fee basis but the majority of the residents polled indicated a willingness to contribute financially if this option is not available. An even more positive indication of residents anger at the situation which has developed.

It is of note that the same firm of lawyers were instrumental in having a tip being run by an associated waste disposal operator in Thomlinson Road, Seaton Carew closed down much earlier than planned. Again the local council and the Environment Agency were apparently unwilling to take action until the residents there resorted to legal process. A browse of the Hartlepool Mail makes interesting reading, especially regarding the local council.
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/legal_threat_over_seaton_landfill_neighbour_1_1507071
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/landfill-site-is-to-be-capped-1-3811026
Also interesting reading is the directors of City Plant Limited and their other directorships which can be found via Google on various company registration websites including http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/city-plant. For a brief period City Plant Ltd was registered at a Hartlepool address associated with other waste operations but this was rapidly changed to the Leatherdog Lane site. Curiouser and curiouser!
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/sws
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/niramax-holdings

It is also of note that following the Newport meeting and its reporting in the local press, the tip operators are now talking about completion within a year! Can they be trusted? My own thoughts immediately jump to the old saying about trusting them as far as I could throw them - you may like to make your own minds up.

If the older and capped off parts of the Leatherdog Lane tip had been left undisturbed and any new waste restricted to only those areas not completed, then with the new areas piled up to the same height as the old there would have been a far shorter life for the tip and in all likelihood it would have been completed by now and be slowly fading into an unpleasant memory. The deliberate uncapping and piling on of new waste was nothing short of a crime against our community and the behaviour of the EA and ERYC utterly disgraceful.

3 comments:

  1. I live in the litter zone but luckily not on the access route. Even so the wind carries the stink and the litter making life too unpleasant for words. I have little chance of selling up and moving away while this tip is open.
    The council and environment agency need kicking all round the site.
    Far from moving residents on to clear the way for tip lorries the police should be processing asbos for the operators, their staff and drivers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. East Riding seem to have two ways of dealing with the tip. They adopt the ostrich position and then switch to the mushroom farmer approach.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What excuse do ERYC have for not annually monitoring the original consented height of the tip?

    ReplyDelete