Annex B

Chronology

This is a chronology of the main events referred to in the report. As indicated in the body of the main report (paragraph 49), it is not comprehensive because a significant number of records are missing. Further, for the sake of brevity, we have not included details of all visits and documents that still exist.

14 Jun 1977

Rossendale Borough Council refused planning permission to the former owner of Mr R’s farm for a barn conversion to a residential dwelling because:

1. the site is in green belt;
2. the development was contrary to ‘Dwellings in Countryside’ policy and was not in the interests of agriculture; and
3. the access was unsuitable for additional vehicles.

May 1999

Lancashire County Council Heritage Site Report.

The report stated that:

‘The site comprises mosaic of habitats. Lodges support a rich and diverse assemblage of aquatic invertebrates.’

May 2000

Mr R and his family move to the farm. The registered office for Mr R’s company was in Bury. The company operated a groundwork, grab hire and skip hire business. Mr R had a Waste Management Licence (WML) to operate a waste transfer station in Bury and a ‘registration of waste carriers certificate’ allowing him to transport waste for profit.

Mr R began substantial development work on the farm site.

31 May 2000

Rossendale Borough Council wrote to Mr R warning him that the excavation and engineering work he was carrying out at the rear and front of his home should cease as it required planning permission. It said that he could apply for planning permission, but that unless the development was suitable for a green belt site it was very unlikely to be approved.

25 Jul 2000

Rossendale Borough Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer visited the site. Mr R was again advised not to continue work and to apply for planning permission.

26 Jul 2000

Two Environment Agency staff visited the farm in response to reports of tipping. They saw no evidence of tipping on the day, but could see from a distance that development work was being carried out.

2 Aug 2000

Rossendale Borough Council sent the Environment Agency a fax about Mr R’s infilling and culverting of an open stream. It said that it was intending to serve an abatement notice but that the Environment Agency’s view would be helpful to them in drafting the notice.

It appears that the Environment Agency telephoned Rossendale Borough Council in response, but it is not clear whether direct contact was made.

2-14 Aug 2000

Environment Agency staff visited the farm on four occasions. They were originally unable to access the farm because of slate and brick tipped on the road, and then were told by a neighbour of Mr R that that was to fill in the holes and would be levelled shortly. Environment Agency officers were also told that the smell of burning was because wood burners were used to heat the farm houses. They subsequently witnessed some evidence of tipping of soil and brick, and the culverting of the stream, and noted 30 empty skips on site. On the final visit they saw Mr R who said he intended to reinstate the farm as a working farm and that the imported waste had been hard core and used for farm renovation, to create a hard standing, and in the garden area. Mr R was given until 28 August 2000 to remove the waste.

24 Nov 2000

The Planning Manager at Rossendale Borough Council wrote to the Traffic Commissioners to object to Mr R’s application for a Heavy Goods Vehicle operator’s licence for the farm (Mr R wanted to operate skip lorries from the site). The Planning Manager said:

‘The site, located as it is in a remote upland rural Green Belt location, along unadopted narrow, otherwise quiet lanes, is inappropriate for such a commercial use by reason of the noise, Fumes, pollution, vibration and visual intrusion. The proposed operating centre is unsuitable … [because of] … heavy recreational use by walkers and horse riders.’

The same day two Environment Agency officers visited the farm in response to complaints of tipping and burning. They noted that they had seen a small fire, but no lumber waste. The soil and brick noted previously appeared to have been removed.

27 Nov 2000

The two Environment Agency officers returned to Mr R’s farm and met Mr R and his solicitor. The solicitor asked when the level of complaints to the Environment Agency from Mr R’s neighbours would count as harassment. Mr R said the fire had been the remains of a children’s bonfire. Mr R denied importing waste onto the site and asked for clarification of what waste he could bring on site and of WML exemptions.

30 Nov 2000

The Borough’s Planning Manager arranged a meeting at Rossendale Borough Council, together with Lancashire County Council and Environment Agency officers, to discuss Mr R’s activities.
(There are no records of this meeting other than a note in an Environment Agency officer’s notebook which said that Rossendale Borough Council was to take the lead, and to serve a notice on Mr R to cease development work and restore the land and stream.)

3 Jan 2001

Rossendale Borough Council served four planning contravention notices regarding development without planning permission for:

• the change of use of the land from agriculture to the storage of skips, containers, skip wagons and other vehicles;
• the culverting of an open stream and raising the level of the land by depositing and infilling with earth, stone and soil;
• removal of vegetation and top soil to provide a level area infilled with rubble, hard core and other waste material, surrounded by earth banks on three sides; and
• excavation behind the farm to level the area.

Mr R was required to remove all the skips etc, to remove all the imported and tipped materials and re-seed the land.

(Rossendale Borough Council subsequently forwarded copies of the notices to the Environment Agency on 6 February, saying that as they had been appealed (to the Secretary of State), it would be unable to take any further action until the appeals had been determined.)

Jan–Jun 2001

The unauthorised use of the site continued unabated. There were 23 telephone calls recorded during this period on the Environment Agency’s National Incident Recording System (NIRS) reporting the tipping, burning and burial of waste on Mr R’s land.

On two occasions (15 and 22 February 2001) the Fire Brigade had to attend the farm to put out the fires.

1 Mar 2001

A footpath closure order was introduced in the county because of Foot and Mouth Disease.

24 Apr 2001

The Environmental Health Officer for Rossendale Borough Council provided a statement in respect of a planning appeal by Mr R. In that he described there as being clear evidence of mixed refuse being burnt on the site in an area which had been deliberately excavated to form a hearth for burning. The officer described the burning smell as ‘putrid in character and carried the odour of decaying refuse, reminiscent of a tip fire as opposed to wood, coal or building rubble’.

24 May 2001

There was a second meeting at Rossendale Borough Council attended by Lancashire County Council and Environment Agency officers. (There is again no record of what was said or agreed.)

31 May 2001

Two Environment Agency officers visited the farm but could see no activity. Mr R telephoned one of the officers later that day, asking if the Environment Agency would be visiting again. He said he had won his operator’s licence on appeal, and did not want bother from the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency officer recorded that he told Mr R that he had already told him that he would need an exemption to take soil, hard core or any other waste to the farm, but that the Environment Agency would definitely prosecute if he burnt waste at the farm. Mr R asked what would happen if the land on which tipping and burning was taking place was sold to another person. The officer said that they would find the owner and prosecute them.

5 Jun 2001

Rossendale Borough Council telephoned the Environment Agency about the activity at Mr R’s farm. It recorded that the Environment Agency had said that they currently had no evidence that what Mr R was doing was illegal, but that they were monitoring the situation. They asked if Rossendale Borough Council should ‘not try health’.

The same day the Traffic Commissioners granted Mr R a restricted HGV operator’s licence (three vehicles only) to use the farm as an operating base for his haulage/skip business with the condition that there should be no loading or unloading of unauthorised vehicles on the site.

6 Jun 2001

Rossendale Borough Council served a further planning contravention notice on Mr R regarding development without planning permission for the change of use of the land from agriculture to the storage of skips, containers, skip wagons and other heavy goods vehicles, and requiring their removal.

Summer 2001 onwards

There were various contacts between Rossendale Borough Council and Mr R’s representative about the enforcement action and appeals. Rossendale Borough Council employed a Consultant Planner to work on the case.

Environment Agency officers visited the farm five times in June 2001 but recorded no evidence of tipping or burning on the first three occasions;
and on the fourth, no evidence that the small fire they could see burning was of material that had been tipped.

20 Jul 2001

The Foot and Mouth Disease footpath closure order was rescinded, and the footpaths re-opened.

29 Aug 2001

Rossendale Borough Council’s former Planning Manager made a statement that he had been obstructed in the course of his duty and assaulted by one of Mr R’s employees. The Planning Manager said that when he had arrived on the site he had found the public footpath to be blocked by a guard dog on a chain. He had walked up the hill on another footpath to see the site of the fire, from which he could see smoke and flames rising from the ground. He had taken photographs of the fire and of various machines, skips and containers. He had then been confronted by a man who shouted at him to stop taking photographs, threatened him and demanded his camera. He said that when he had tried to telephone for assistance the man had taken his mobile phone and thrown it in a reservoir; the man had then blocked his path with a lorry so he could not leave in his car.

The Planning Manager went on to say that Mr R had then arrived and said he did not own the field where the fire was burning and that the man who had taken the Planning Manager’s mobile phone was a contractor. Mr R had then gone back to his house after calling to the other man to take the keys out of the lorry.

The Planning Manager had walked to the nearest farm and used their telephone to call the police. The Planning Manager got his car back with police support.

(There is no record of any action being taken by Rossendale Borough Council following this incident.)

1 Sep 2001

NIRS showed that a caller had telephoned to say that Mr R was burning more waste than ever, and that while the caller had been on the line, the Fire Brigade had arrived to extinguish the fire.

7 Sep 2001

The Environment Agency wrote to Rossendale Borough Council saying that they were investigating the activities at Mr R’s farm. They had been told by a local resident that Rossendale Borough Council had taken photographs of the work on the site, and asked if they would confirm that and ‘discuss it to determine points of mutual interest’.

10 Sep 2001

Rossendale Borough Council called the Environment Agency and told them about the incident on 29 August 2001. However, the Council officer had gone on to say that Mr R had gone a long way to complying with the planning enforcement notices and the only outstanding issue was the reinstatement of the burning pit area. He added that a planning enforcement notice relating to the raising of the site for business purposes was currently under way.

28 Sep 2001

From August 2001 onwards, Rossendale Borough Council had received numerous complaints that Mr R was obstructing footpaths, removing stiles, had an aggressive dog which was chained but blocking access, and putting up signs indicating that there was no right of way. Rossendale Borough Council’s Rights of Way Officer had sent Mr R a warning letter, requiring him to rectify matters, but in the absence of a response, the Rights of Way Officer wrote to Rossendale Borough Council’s solicitor asking him to initiate proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court.

2 Oct 2001

As part of their investigation, an Environment Agency officer carried out observations of the farm. He recorded, and took photographs of, what appeared to be an excavation pit containing mixed demolition waste, including timber, tree cuttings and white boarding (described as ‘formica‑type’), but saw no vehicle activity or burning.

3 Oct 2001

The Environment Agency officer returned to the site; he observed no change in the waste level and no vehicle activity.

16 Oct 2001

The land on Mr R’s farm on which the tipping and burning took place was transferred to Mr M, a person living in Eire, for £500.

17 Oct 2001

An Environment Agency officer observed the remnants of a pit fire, but was unable to determine what had been burnt.

18 Oct 2001

The Rights of Way Officer wrote to the solicitor again saying ‘I am still receiving complaints of obstruction and intimidation. I would be obliged if you could initiate proceedings’. (There appears to have been some further exchange of correspondence at a later date, although the content of that is unknown, and no court action was taken.)

18 Oct-14 Nov 2001

During this period five calls were made to NIRS to report extensive tipping and burning on the farm, causing much smoke.

29 Nov 2001

The Consultant Planner employed by Rossendale Borough Council wrote to Mr R’s representative saying that Mr R had complied with the first two enforcement notices issued on 3 January 2001, and would be given extra time (until May 2002) to comply with the other two issued that same day. However, Rossendale Borough Council intended to continue with action in respect of the notice issued on 6 June 2001.

1 Dec 2001

A call to NIRS reported continuous burning of waste on the farm all day.

4 Dec 2001

An Environment Agency officer observed burning of what appeared to be wood, paper and other domestic waste in the excavated pit on the farm. He also recorded numerous people and vehicles on the site, including an empty bulk container from Mr R’s waste business, but that he had not witnessed anything being put on the fire.

5 Dec 2001

Another Environment Agency officer witnessed tipping of controlled waste whilst conducting site surveillance.

19 Dec 2001

Rossendale Borough Council served a further planning contravention notice on Mr R together with a stop notice requiring him to immediately cease unauthorised engineering operations on the land, to remove all hard core, crushed stone, concrete and building material and to restore the land to its condition before the breach had occurred.

15 Jan 2002

A caller reported to NIRS that wood was being burnt on the farm and that there were also intermittent explosions, with three further loads of waste waiting to be burnt.

22 Jan 2002

A further report of tipping and burning was made to NIRS. The caller said that over the previous 6 months around 15 to 20 loads of around 20 tons of waste each per day had been delivered, with 3 loads delivered that morning.

Two Environment Agency officers went to the farm and witnessed tipping of controlled waste and took photographs as evidence. The officers were then obstructed by Mr R, who refused to let them leave the site unless they surrendered the film from the camera. Mr R denied that he was the owner of the lorry (although it was marked ‘[R] Bros’ on the side) which had been seen tipping waste, or of the land upon which it had been tipped. He told them that he was using some hard core materials to create a hard standing for silage.

Mr R was recorded as saying that he felt Rossendale Borough Council was dragging the Environment Agency into his argument with it, and that if the Environment Agency ‘pushed their investigations’ he would take action against them. The Environment Agency told Mr R they believed an offence had been committed and would need to caution him, but he said he would not accept a caution. The Environment Agency recorded that Mr R’s attitude had changed once they had handed over the film. He had said he wanted to co‑operate and work with them, but that in future they should call him and make an appointment.

Later the same day, Mr R telephoned the Environment Agency and said that all he was trying to do was to build a silage store and that he was moving hard core materials for that purpose. The officer explained that the Environment Agency officers had the legal powers to go onto Mr R’s land and investigate potential breaches of the law. The incident the officers had witnessed had involved other types of material.

24 Jan 2002

The same day the Environment Agency wrote to Mr R saying that their officers had witnessed the depositing of controlled waste and asking for details of the new owners both of the land, and of the vehicle which Mr R had also said that he had sold.

The Environment Agency also wrote to the DVLA requesting details of the lorry seen tipping waste on 22 January 2002. DVLA responded the same day with the details and Environment Agency officers visited the registered owner, who denied owning the vehicle or having bought it from Mr R. He said that he had received the log book for the vehicle through the post a few weeks previously but had returned it to DVLA.

31 Jan 2002

The Environment Agency sent Mr R a section 71 notice which required him to provide information about ownership of each of the buildings on the farm and of the land.

7 Feb 2002

A further report was made to NIRS of large-scale tipping and burning at the farm.

8 Feb 2002

Rossendale Borough Council wrote to Lancashire County Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer about a proposed meeting on 21 February to discuss enforcement issues at Mr R’s farm. The letter said that the purpose of the meeting was:

‘to enable each party to be kept informed of the current position in respect of their own dealings with Mr [R] and to try and ensure that any appropriate evidence is mutually available. It is expected that appropriate Officers will attend from Rossendale Borough Council, Lancashire County Council and the EA.’

That same day, the Environment Agency wrote to Mr R saying that he had failed to comply fully with the section 71 notice and giving him seven further days to respond.

21 Feb 2002

Rossendale Borough Council held a third meeting with Lancashire County Council and Environment Agency officers to discuss Mr R’s activities. No record was made of the meeting.

That day Environment Agency officers carried out further observations at the farm, but witnessed no burning.

22 Feb 2002

The Environment Agency sent a letter to the registered owner of land (Mr M) on which tipping and burning had taken place. The letter said that there had been deposit, disposal and keeping of controlled waste on the land and asked the owner to contact them.

(There is no record of a response to this letter.)

27 Feb 2002

The Environment Agency wrote to Mr M, and his solicitors, saying that controlled waste was being deposited, treated and kept on the land.

April 2002

Large numbers of complaints were made to Rossendale Borough Council about Mr R’s activities by local residents, and visitors to the area, who also complained that Mr R was aggressive and threatening. The Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit wrote saying:

‘Landfill within the valley is damaging the historic character of this relic industrial landscape. The integrity of the landscape is diminishing and the valley’s future potential for archaeological research and recording, recreation, education and presentation is being compromised.’

During this period local residents again complained that 15 to 20 bulk tipper trucks were visiting the site each day.

5 Apr 2002

The Environment Agency wrote to Rossendale Borough Council saying that there was evidence of unauthorised waste management on the land, but that it was insufficient to identify those responsible. They added that the material deposited by Mr R was for the maintenance of roads and was therefore exempt. The other dumping and burning was on land not owned by Mr R, but the identity of those responsible had not been established.

8 May 2002

Mr R’s appeal against the enforcement notice that was issued on 6 June 2001 was heard by the Planning Inspector by way of a public enquiry. Mr R contended that the containers and vehicles were for agricultural purposes.

The Inspector dismissed the appeals, but varied the notices to say to allow development insofar as it was necessary for agricultural purposes. The Inspector’s report noted that, at the time the original enforcement notices had been served, there had been no agricultural activity on the site but that, between serving the notices and the appeal, Mr R had brought some animals onto the farm albeit at that time ‘at the scale of a hobby rather than a commercial operation’. The Council had conceded that there was evidence of some current agriculture use. The notices were accordingly amended to say:

The Inspector gave Mr R six months to comply, and told him that he would have to justify how much of the hard standing could remain.

11 Jul 2002

The Consultant Planner employed by Rossendale Borough Council visited the site to assess progress on the various notices. He reported his findings back to the Development Control Officer. He found that:

• The tipped field was no longer used for storing skips, containers or wagons.
• The notice regarding the culverted stream had been complied with.
• ‘Prosecution in respect of tipped field is possible, desirable, necessary and likely to attract severe penalties.’
• No action had been taken to alter the embankment that had been created near the farmhouse and prosecution was possible, but a large fine would be unlikely as vegetation was returning.
  ‘No doubt that R is having a laugh at our expense. The appeal decision says he must stop storing and remove concrete, except to the extent that they are reasonably required for purposes of agriculture. Much as it grieves me, I can see no prospect of successful prosecution where the standard of proof will be “beyond reasonable doubt” and Mr [R] has containers filled with straw bales placed strategically over the whole area.’
• Rossendale Borough Council should ask if Mr R is willing to withdraw his appeal and agree to grass over the middle third of hard standing, as it was unlikely to achieve much more on appeal.

26 Jul 2002

Mr R’s representative accepted Rossendale Borough Council’s proposals in respect of the enforcement notices and agreed to restore the site as required if given more time to do so.

31 Jul 2002

Lancashire County Council’s Land Agent provided an opinion on whether the hard standing at Mr R’s farm was necessary for the agricultural use of the site, which at the time he estimated to be approximately 12 to 15 head of cattle. He advised Rossendale Borough Council that the unit could support 25 head of cattle and that the concrete hard standing could have an agricultural use for storing winter feed. On this basis, he estimated that the unit needed about 450m2 of hard standing, and that Mr R had laid down about 8 times that amount.

Aug 2002

There was a major re-organisation of the Environment Agency in the North West. The local Environment Agency office in Sale closed and staff moved to the regional office in Warrington.

4 Nov 2002

Mr R was found guilty of obstructing Environment Agency officers on 22 January 2002. He received a conditional discharge for 12 months, was fined and an award of costs was made against him.

That same day Rossendale Borough Council wrote to Mr R’s representative telling him that it had reached the view that any agricultural use that Mr R had introduced on the farm had ceased. It asked for details of agricultural use to be confirmed. It also noted that Mr R was again bringing skips and loaded wagons onto the site in breach of the Planning Inspector’s enforcement notices, and that:

‘cessation of these activities is immediately required. I shall without further notice commence proceedings upon these breaches of the enforcement notices unless he desists.’

9 Jan 2003

Mr D complained to Rossendale Borough Council about the lack of action against Mr R. He said that after the appeal Mr R had been given varying amounts of time to resolve several matters, but that all of the deadlines had come and gone and yet the activities continued. Mr D said that he had spoken to one of its officers on several occasions informing him of these facts, but time kept passing and nothing seemed to be happening. He said that Mr R was still:

• using green belt land to dump skips full of industrial waste and other materials;
• erecting signs to discourage people from using several footpaths in the area;
• keeping skip wagons, skips and larger containers permanently on site;
• using the site as overnight and weekend parking for additional skip wagons;
• not digging up the mass of concrete as he was supposed to; and
• not returning the land to its original green state. He said that Mr R had destroyed even more of the green belt land since the enquiry.

Mr D went on to say:

‘I have been led to believe it is the council’s duty to enforce the decisions of the public inquiry without having to resort to media or other means. No one at the council seems to want to tell me why all of these activities are still going on this site and out of desperation I am writing to you in the hope of an answer.’

21 Jan 2003

Rossendale Borough Council’s planning and legal officers met to decide a way forward and made a list of the breaches of the enforcement notices. It was agreed that action was needed: either a prosecution or injunction. It was decided to re-check the land ownership position with the land registry, to visit the site as soon as possible and to arrange for outside solicitors to deal with the case.

30 Jan 2003

An email from Rossendale Borough Council’s planning department to its legal department indicated that it was its intention to take out injunctions against Mr R to ensure compliance with the enforcement notices.

13 Jun 2003

Rossendale Borough Council’s Planning Manager sent an email to the Borough’s legal department, saying:

‘Our failure to take action against Mr [R] as we have both promised and threatened exposes us to even more criticism than the other authorities who have been even less diligent in pursuing their powers against this serial breaker of any and every regulation in existence.’

16 Jun 2003

Rossendale Borough Council’s Planning Manager sent a further email to the Borough’s legal department saying:

‘I feel that we are failing Mr D. As you will be aware from my previous calls, memos and emails I am extremely concerned that we have not yet taken any action against [R]. I understand that you have all the information you require to proceed with a prosecution. When will it occur?’

18 Jun 2003

Rossendale Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer called NIRS to report tipping and burning at the farm.

27 Jun 2003

Rossendale Borough Council’s Planning Manager sent an email to a colleague saying that the matter was getting out of hand and ‘beyond just critical … I think we need to have a meeting of all possibly involved with [Mr R] to try and ensure that we co-ordinate our actions as soon as possible. But we must not delay in any way in taking the agreed action against him which must be instituted as soon as possible’.

Rossendale Borough Council called the Environment Agency asking for an update on Mr R’s activities.

That same day Rossendale Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer sent a report to the Environment Agency saying that the Fire Brigade had attended a large fire in a burning pit on Mr R’s land on 6 June 2003. There had been evidence of waste, such as fridges, on site.

3 Jul 2003

The Fire Brigade sent a report to NIRS that they were attending a large fire in the burning pit on the farm and that fridges were within the waste that was being burnt.

11 Jul 2003

Rossendale Borough Council’s Planning Manager sent a memorandum to his Chief Executive.

The memorandum said:

‘the Inspector held up the enforcement notices. We then negotiated with a series of professional agents as to what we would accept to comply with the now by valid enf notices. He [Mr R] has not done any of the works, which after negotiating with his neighbours, we would have accepted.

‘Eventually we prepared evidence for an injunction. There has been some delay whilst there has been confusion about who has sent/received what necessary evidence but I understand that [xx] now has all the evidence he needs … and … intends to initiate action next week.

‘We have at the beginning and recently tried to involve the County Council … and the EA … and have singularly failed with any co-ordinated action.

‘Compared to problems that he [Mr R] causes and the wide range of illegal activities that he indulges in, what we are doing to attempt to control him is very minor and I share the locals’ perception that “they” have failed to provide the public with the protection that they have every right to expect.’

Aug 2003

Rossendale Borough Council instructed a private firm of solicitors to take enforcement action against Mr R.

24 Aug 2003

Rossendale Borough Council’s Environmental Health Officer reported to NIRS that the Fire Brigade was still attending (and had been since 11.00pm the previous night) a large fire in the burning pit on the farm. He assessed that about ten tons of waste had been burnt, including fridges and washing machines.

28 Aug 2003

Two Environment Agency officers visited the site but saw no activity.

26 Sep 2003

The Environment Agency applied for permission to be able to carry out covert surveillance operation at the farm, which was agreed.

1 Oct 2003

At the suggestion of the appointed solicitor, Rossendale Borough Council sent a new warning letter to Mr R saying that the breach of the enforcement notice issued on 6 June 2001 continued as he was keeping containers on site, and the concrete hard standing next to the stream had not been removed. Mr R was given four weeks to comply or Rossendale Borough Council intended to prosecute without further notice.

Oct 2003

Rossendale Borough Council’s Development Control Committee authorised the Director of Corporate Services to ‘take action in the County or High Court to secure by injunction or otherwise compliance with the outstanding enforcement notices and resolution of the remaining breaches of planning control at the land’.

9 Oct 2003

Rossendale Borough Council’s officers and the appointed solicitor met with an external barrister, who recommended that Rossendale Borough Council’s chances of success would be greatly enhanced if it could get Lancashire County Council, as Waste and Minerals Planning Authority, and the Environment Agency, to act with it in a joint action. The barrister advised collecting fresh evidence for an injunction.

17 Oct 2003

Rossendale Borough Council invited Lancashire County Council to join it in action.

21 Oct 2003

Rossendale Borough Council’s Development Control Committee passed a resolution that its officers were authorised to take proceedings against Mr R in the County or High Court regarding breaches of planning controls and failure to comply with the enforcement notices.

31 Oct 2003

The Environment Agency discontinued the covert surveillance of Mr R’s farm on the grounds that:

‘Although good evidence was obtained on this occasion Officers need to be able to prove that the waste being burnt and buried on the site is imported and does not arise on the farm.’

11 Nov 2003

Lancashire County Council agreed to join Rossendale Borough Council in any legal action it might take in respect of Mr R’s activities.

22 Nov 2003

There was a fourth meeting at Rossendale Borough Council attended by Lancashire County Council and Environment Agency officers. (Following this meeting more complaints were received about Mr R’s activities and fresh statements were taken from Mr D, Rossendale Borough Council’s Enforcement Officer, the Planning Manager and the local Fire Brigade.)

30 Jan 2004

Rossendale Borough Council was advised by its Counsel that the ownership of the burning pit area, allegedly sold to Mr M in October 2001, needed further investigation.

Rossendale Borough Council’s files show that around this time it found case summaries on the internet that described another planning authority successfully showing that a land sale of an area used for tipping was a sham designed to avoid prosecution, and successfully taking action against the true owner and his solicitor.

Rossendale Borough Council also received information about animal livestock movements on the farm. This showed that there had been some pig breeding (fewer than 25) in 2002 and that 12 head of cattle had moved off the site in July 2002.

17 Feb 2004

Rossendale Borough Council again met with Environment Agency and Lancashire County Council officers to co-ordinate action to deal with Mr R. This meeting was also attended by Rossendale Borough Council’s solicitor and barrister. It was not clear from the brief note of the meeting what action had been agreed.

23 Feb 2004

The barrister sent Rossendale Borough Council his opinion in writing. This said that:

• the evidence it had was insufficient for an injunction, partly due to its nature and partly due to its age;
• the breaches of Rossendale Borough Council’s enforcement notices were old and provable only for a short duration;
• the evidence of harm was not strong, especially so because, in his opinion, what was happening at Mr R’s farm was a waste transfer or disposal operation and needed to be dealt with by both Lancashire County and Rossendale Borough Councils: ‘At the conference, I did not think it appropriate to inquire too deeply into why LCC have not taken action. Rather, we focused on where things stand now’; and
• Rossendale Borough Council should work with the other bodies to prepare evidence to show frequent and persistent breaches of planning control that required the intervention of the court or else they were likely to continue.

The barrister added that, in his view, the best tactic was to unite the various agencies in bringing to bear co-ordinated, but legitimate, pressure on Mr R to bring the site into line with the various legal requirements upon him. He said that a disjointed response would, in the light of past experience, cause Mr R to ‘play one agency off against the other’. The barrister said that it was his impression from the meeting that Lancashire County Council was going to try and get things moving from its viewpoint, but that he had not got the same impression from the Environment Agency, who had described the site as ‘a low priority’, and had given the impression that the site was not of major concern to them.

20 Apr 2004

Lancashire County Council’s Land Agent wrote to Rossendale Borough Council saying that although Mr R claimed to own over 100 head of cattle, none had been present on site in February 2002. In his view, there was sufficient evidence to show that Mr R had not been involved in agriculture in the previous 12 months, but that the land on the site had been farmed by others.

22 Apr 2004

Environment Agency, Lancashire County Council and Rossendale Borough Council staff, together with two of the Borough’s legal team met to decide a way forward in dealing with Mr R’s activities. According to the note made by Lancashire County Council, they decided that a multi‑agency approach was needed. They would visit the site together to ‘make [their] presence known’, and would then make follow-up visits to monitor activities.

29 Apr 2004

Environment Agency and Lancashire County Council officers visited Mr R’s farm. They advised Mr R that if he was tipping waste at the farm he would require a licence.

6 May 2004

The Environment Agency wrote to Mr R warning him that controlled waste had been found on the site which did not have a WML and no exemptions had been applied for. Mr R was warned of the consequences if the illegal activity continued.

10 May 2004

Mrs D wrote again to Rossendale Borough Council complaining about the lack of action. She attached two photographs: one showing a large tipper lorry dumping waste onto a large pile close to her house, and the other showing waste being burnt.

The same day, the external solicitor wrote to Rossendale Borough Council saying that she would be happy to act for it against Mr R when it was ready to proceed.

19 May 2004

The Environment Agency wrote to Mr R saying that he had told them he intended to apply for a WML exemption for the resurfacing of a number of local access roads. They reminded him that he would need to be able to demonstrate that he had the permission of the relevant landowners before an exemption could be considered.

28 May 2004

Lancashire County Council wrote to Mr R outlining its requirements and pointing out that any new importation of waste would result in enforcement action.

13 Jul 2004

Mr R wrote to Lancashire County Council outlining his proposed plans for re‑instatement of the land and also to drain the adjoining field to deal with flooding problems.

15 Jul 2004

The Environment Agency again wrote to Mr R telling him how to apply for WML exemptions.

4 Aug 2004

Mr R contacted the Environment Agency to say that rain had washed the road away and that he wanted to import material to repair it. He was told that an exemption would be allowed if he first agreed the materials to be used.

6 Aug 2004

The Environment Agency wrote to Rossendale Borough Council saying that they were allowing Mr R an exemption in order to repair the road.

9 Sep 2004

A complaint was made that Mr R was burning rubbish again.

10 Sep 2004

A Lancashire County Council officer visited the site and noted that the road had now been re-surfaced and was passable, that there had been no new waste importations and that the burning had been of household rubbish due to the road having previously been impassable.

Oct/Nov 2004

Lancashire County Council staff carried out three site visits and recorded that the re‑instatement was progressing well, the site was much improved, and that the work would cease until the spring.

17 Mar 2005

The Environment Agency wrote to Mr R warning him that there was controlled waste on the site without a WML and that no exemptions had been applied for. Mr R was warned of the consequences if illegal activity continued.

26 Aug 2005

Mr D reported to Lancashire County Council that Mr R was tipping waste again.

31 Aug 2005

Lancashire County Council and Environment Agency staff made an unannounced site visit and were satisfied that there had been no fresh tipping, but that materials had been drawn together into a mound as part of the re-instatement programme.

14 Dec 2005

Following a further site visit with Lancashire County Council on 9 December, when Mr R was told to remove some recent waste, the Environment Agency again wrote to Mr R telling him how to apply for exemptions.

29 Apr 2006

Environment Agency officers visited the farm and observed remains of burnt commercial waste. They told Mr R that he would need a licence if he was tipping on the farm. He was again told that an exemption could be granted for road creation.

23 May 2006

The new Environment Agency Regional Environmental Crime Team Leader asked for enquiries to be made in response to a report from Rossendale Borough Council of further allegations of unlawful waste activity on the farm.

31 May 2006

The Environment Agency met with Environmental Health Officers at Rossendale Borough Council and together visited Mr R’s farm, but found no sign of activity.

6 Jun 2006

Mrs D telephoned the Environment Agency and complained that Mr R was depositing waste in a large hole on his land. Arrangements were made for the Environment Agency officers to visit Mrs D the following day as she had volunteered that Mr R’s activities could be seen from her property.

7 Jun 2006

Two Environment Agency officers visited the farm, but did not observe any activity. They received a message from a neighbour of Mrs D’s who expressed concern that if the Environment Agency were going to visit Mrs D, she might face repercussions from Mr R. Having spoken to colleagues, who said that in order to visit Mrs D they would have to drive past Mr R’s farm, the officers decided not to visit her.

19 Jun 2006

Lancashire County Council’s Development Control Planning Officer and the Environment Agency met to discuss Mr R’s activities. The Council Officer reported that Mr R had allegedly been raising land levels, but no planning permission had been given for that. The Council Officer said that he had made frequent visits to the farm but had not seen evidence of unlawful activities.

29 Jun 2006

Another Environment Agency officer visited Mr R’s farm and noted that there was controlled waste on site without a WML and that no exemptions had been applied for. Mr R told him that he wanted to raise the level of the land to prevent flooding and intended to import inert materials to carry out the work. The Environment Agency officer told him that he might be able to apply for an exemption for that, but he would first need to demonstrate that he had planning consents. Mr R was again warned of the consequences if the illegal activity continued.

30 Jun 2006

The Environment Agency wrote to Mr R reinforcing what they had told him the previous day and enclosing application forms for an exemption.

19 Jul 2006

Mrs D telephoned to say that Mr R was bringing soils onto the land. She was told the Environment Agency would visit as soon as possible.

27 Jul 2006

Following two further reports to NIRS of tipping and burning on the farm, an Environment Agency officer visited the site and witnessed fresh deposits of controlled waste (including household, construction and demolition waste) imported without a WML or exemption.

Photographs were taken and the same day, a letter was sent to Mr R informing him of what had been observed and asking him to contact the Environment Agency to arrange an interview under caution.

7 Aug 2006

Having heard nothing further from Mr R, the Environment Agency sent out a repeat request for him to contact them.

31 Aug 2006

After a further three NIRS reports about tipping on Mr R’s farm (including one from Rossendale Borough Council), an Environment Agency officer visited the site and again witnessed fresh deposits of controlled waste imported without a WML or exemption.

Mr R was told that he would be invited to Warrington for an interview under caution, but he replied that he would be unavailable as he was working away from home.

7 Sep 2006

An Environment Agency officer telephoned Mr R to try and arrange an interview but was told that he was working away from home during the next two weeks.

28 Sep 2006

A letter was sent to Mr R inviting him to an interview with the Environment Agency on 6 October 2006. (Mr R did not respond or attend.)

23 Oct 2006

Lancashire County Council and Environment Agency staff carried out a joint site visit and noted that there had been no further waste imported, and that the inert waste material noted previously had been removed. Lancashire County Council noted that the Environment Agency were to continue with their investigation, but that this was not a matter relevant to Lancashire County Council.

3 Nov 2006

Four Environment Agency officers visited the site and witnessed fresh deposits of controlled waste imported without a WML or exemption.

4 Nov 2006

Two Environment Agency officers visited the site yet again and witnessed fresh deposits of controlled waste imported without a WML or exemption.

16 Nov 2006

The Environment Agency telephoned Mr R who said that he would not attend an interview. He was warned that proceedings would now begin.

At some point in November reports were received that Mr R was tipping waste at another site. According to the Environment Agency’s account it was decided that, as it was possible that offences were being committed there, and there might therefore be a requirement to interview him
about other matters, they would monitor this and not start proceedings in relation to the farm at this point.

28 Feb 2007

Three Environment Agency officers visited the site and witnessed fresh deposits of controlled waste imported without a WML or exemption. Mr R was cautioned for offences under section 33 of the 1990 Act, and was told that the evidence would be submitted to the Environment Agency’s legal department for consideration for prosecution.

12 Jun 2007

The Traffic Commissioners revoked Mr R’s Heavy Goods licence to operate from the farm.

6 Jun 2008

Mr R pleaded guilty to three offences of depositing, disposing and keeping controlled waste without a WML on his farm.

The judge asked the Environment Agency to prepare a survey of the farm in order to determine the nature and amount of the waste on the farm. The outcome of this was that it was estimated that 7,613m³ of controlled waste remained on the land. This included metal, brick, ceramic tile, wood, plastic, glass, felt, copper tubing, fence wire, roof tiles, plastic guttering, clothing, fluorescent tubing, soil, stone, carpet, plastic bags, bonded rubber, foam pipe, MDF board, polypropylene rope, a fridge door, a UPVC window frame and cement-bonded fibrous material.

Back to top