No more waste to be tipped on Gilberdyke Landfill Site from 1st Jan

Yesterday the Environment Agency announced they were issuing a revised operating permit for the landfill waste site at Gilberdyke, which will see no more waste tipped on the site from 1st January 2013 and will bring about the closure of the tip.  

This is very welcome news although it long overdue in the eyes of many, not just people living in the vicinity of the tip but also those from far and wide who have witnessed the actions of tip operators City Plant Ltd over many, many months - including their cynical disregard for the conditions contained in the planning consent.  Newport residents have had to put up with thousands of massive HGVs travelling through their village, the most appalling stink, litter, dust, mud – and the imposition of an enormous artificial mountain overlooking their community as a permanent reminder.

There are outstanding issues with the site remaining that need to be addressed, and there is a planning application winding its way through the system.  I still have serious concerns amount the long term impact of the tip on the community, particularly the issues of surface water run-off, capping of the site and risks of pollution. (see previous posts).  But we have to accept that the changes to the permit is a major step in bringing about completion of the site.

The Environment Agency state:

From January 1 2013, the tip’s operator City Plant Ltd will no longer be able to deposit general waste at the site. The new permit restricts tipping to inert substances, such as capping soils that will seal the waste site for restoration to a natural appearance.

The Environment Agency issued the permit variation on Friday 30 November, as the site has reached its maximum capacity for general, non-hazardous waste. It is expected that all of the capping materials will have been deposited by November 2013, although tree planting and other landscaping works may continue after this date.

City Plant Ltd has also applied to change its existing environmental permit for the site. The firm's applications specify the overall size and shape of the site and how the site will be managed after capping, looking at aspects such as surface water management and gas extraction. The details of the applications are currently being considered by the Environment Agency.

Peter Stevenson, Environment Manager at the Environment Agency, said: “This is a significant milestone in the lifecycle of the landfill site at Gilberdyke. Once capping begins in January, no more general waste will be allowed, and that means that any problems of odour or unsightliness of waste will be reduced in time. Ultimately we are looking forward to seeing the site entirely finished, with the surface restored to its natural state - and that goal is now in sight.

“We will of course continue to work closely with City Plant Ltd, East Riding of Yorkshire Council and local residents to ensure that the tip is managed appropriately and that it has a minimal impact on the local environment and community.”

Why Gilberdyke Tip planning application should be refused

The application by City Plant Ltd for the Gilberdyke Landfill site is with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and comments have been invited from interested parties.  This is in many respects a retrospective application because the tip is almost full, to levels way above the presently consented height.  The application seeks to regularise the current levels, change the landscaping plans, install electricity generators to utilise the landfill gas, and try to sort out the surface water run-off. 

City Plant Ltd has been cynical in how they have played the system and the ERYC and the Environment Agency have been powerless to stop the blatant disregarding of planning conditions by the company.  I accept we are where we are with the height and volume of the tip - but how the site is finished and left is of critical importance and in my opinion the application has serious flaws.

It is now time for the ERYC and the EA to work closely together to ensure the tip is left safe for years to come, and not create on-going problems for the communities of Gilberdyke and Newport.  I certainly feel the application should be refused until the following 12 points are addressed. 
 

1. The proposal for the finishing of the landfill site including the capping and the finished landscaping is of concern - The original application was for 1.0m clay capping plus a layer of soil and trees to be planted on top.  The new application is to use a thin ‘bentonite type’ carpet and a layer of soil and grass instead.   Clay is flexible and will be much more able to cope with the differing rates of settlement that the tip will experience over time, the differential in settlement resulting from different levels of old waste and new waste and compaction across the area of the site.  It was felt  the bentonite will crack whereas the clay will move naturally and with trees planted in the clay and soil cap the roots will bind the whole together.     The maximum height of the mound to be no more than 19.5m at any time.

2. Leachate – the proposed management of the leachate from the site is not sufficient as proposed and the risk of pollution of nearby watercourses is thought to be unacceptably high.    There is an absence of an open collection ditch surrounding the site and no flat separation ground between the site and the adjacent dykes.  Both are thought essential to minimise the risk of pollution.  

3. Gas collection – It is felt there will inevitably be some noise pollution with this process.    There will need to be strict 24 hour noise limitations placed upon the site. 

4. It is essential that the gas transport/extraction pipes be protected with adequate impact barriers where the pipework is vulnerable. 

5. Weighbridge – when the site is closed to tipping or capping there will be no need for the weighbridge.   It is felt absolutely essential and non-negotiable that the weigh bridge is removed to prevent further tipping. 

6. Health – I would like to request that all the potential health risks of the site in both the short and long term must be assessed or appropriately scrutinised by independent health service professionals – who are not engaged by City Plant – these must be engaged by the ERYC in consultation with the local parish councils, and the cost preferably met by City Plant Ltd.

7. Profile – the profile of the mound must allow for (rain) water to run off rather than being allowed to pool on the relatively flat top as proposed.  The profile to be a domed shape rather than flat, with a comprehensive settlement plan showing how the dome will be maintained of the next 25 years.  

8. Community Fund – If the landfill gas is to be used to generate electricity it is requested that a community fund be set up with contribution paid into the fund for every megawatt generated for the life of the landfill site’s electricity generation. It is suggested this be similar to wind farm community funding arrangements and be at a rate of £2,500 (per megawatt per year) and for this to be index linked.   The fund to be jointly administered by the ERYC and Gilberdyke and Newport Parish Councils. 

9. The present ERYC holding objection to the Environment Agency which effectively stops the issuing of a new permit to be held until such time that planning consent is granted.    It is requested that any conditions applied to the planning application are completely in synch, compatible and completely seamless with any conditions applied by the Environment Agency in their permit i.e. no administrative gaps for the company to take advantage of as we have seen in the past. 

10. I would request that a bond to be provided to East Riding of Yorkshire Council for all remedial work that does not fall within the Environment Agency scope – i.e. residential/road repairs etc. 

11. When site is no longer in use for tipping of waste materials the company (City Plant) must be responsible for bringing Thimblehall Lane and Mill Lane back to an acceptable standard. 

12. I would request that the application is NOT approved until ALL the concerns of the Ouse and Humber Drainage Board have been addressed to the Boards satisfaction.

There is to be a public meeting on Thursday 1st November 2012 at 7.30pm in Newport Village Hall to dscuss the the major issues relating to the planning application, and organise a petition so that ERYC officers and councillors are totally aware of the strong feelings held by residents.  Everyone is welcome to attend, but please bear in mind a film crew are expected - so be prepared to be filmed!

Councillor Paul Robinson's response to Gilberdyke tip application

My response to the Environment Agency regarding the application by City Plant Ltd to vary the conditions of the permit under which they currently work under.

Introduction

I am very concerned that City Plant Ltd has submitted an application to vary the terms/conditions of the permit relating to the operation of Leatherdog Lane Landfill site in Gilberdyke, an application that appears to contain so many errors, contradictions and more than anything is retrospective. Having been party to numerous meetings, chaired the ‘Tip Liaison Committee’, and as ward member for Howdenshire on the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) I have witnessed first-hand the actions of the operator, the Environment Agency (EA), the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, and as well as having listened to the concerns of residents – I therefore think I am more than qualified to comment on the application to vary the permit.

Objections 

1. Over the past 18 months or so I have witnessed the shambolic actions of those agencies supposed to protect residents, and the way City Plant Ltd have systematically circumvented the planning consent and the permit conditions, only being brought to heel by enforcement action by the EA, which in my opinion came far too late.
2. It is clear that this application should not be considered until such a time that a planning consent has been determined by the ERYC, which will no doubt, if approved, contain legally enforceable conditions rather than what we have seen previously. I would therefore suggest that it is imperative that o decision or varying the permit be taken until planning consent has been obtained.
3. The permit should then be totally and legally compatible with any conditions applied to the planning consent (if given) from the ERYC.
4. Having read the application and sought further advice I am NOT convinced that a ‘bentonite‘ light weight capping is suitable for this landfill site, mainly due to the risks of fracture or tearing as the tip subsides at different rates across the site as a result of the differentials in compaction and identified rates of settlement over the 25 year timespan. I have found nothing in the application to reassure me that the risks have been fully taken into account by the consultants working for City Plant Ltd. I therefore take the view that a clay capping would be more appropriate and less risky, and insist that this is included in the permit. I would also like to see trees planted across the top of the site. I accept that this would perhaps mean more vehicle movements to bring the capping clay and topsoil onto the site, but the risks outweigh the inconvenience.
5. The finished height of the tip should not be above the previously agreed levels of 19.5m – and for clarification this is the height when the tip is capped off and closed NOT at a time after that.
6. The priority for all concerned is the timeframe, I have had it confirmed by City Plant Ltd that the tipping of waste on the site will be completed by November 2012, allowing 1 month contingency I would therefore request that a time frame is imposed so that tipping of waste on the site stops by 31^st December 2012.
7. I am not convinced of the landfill gas being burnt off using gas generators, although this is a better option than flaring off. I would prefer that the gas be collected and removed from site to be purified. I could accept a purification plant installed on site to remove harmful toxins produced by the burning of landfill gas, providing the risk to residents could be established and independently verified as being so low so as not to warrant concern.
8. I am also not convinced of the proposals for controlling water pollution into nearby watercourses or dykes. This is particularly relevant if the site was to split or crack due to differential of settlement over the coming years. I have concerns that the steep slopes of the site do not have run off areas and the lack of a dyke running around the perimeter that is capable of being isolated from the dykes running alongside the site.

In conclusion:

• There should be NO VARIATION to the permit until such a time that planning consent has been granted by the ERYC.
• The site should be capped with clay and topsoil and trees planted across the top of the site.
• The finished height of the site must be part/condition of the permit.
• The timeframe to stop tipping waste must be part of the permit.
• No gas generators to be installed unless the risk to residents is proven to be harmless.
• A much better plan for dealing with surface water run-off and potential leachate leakage must be put forward.

Cllr Paul Robinson 

ERYC Ward Member for Howdenshire

Emotions run high at Gilberdyke Tip public meeting

(pictured with Newport Parish Council chairman Roy Hunt and Kevin Clifford)

This past week I was asked to chair a public meeting to consider the application by City Plant Ltd to vary some of the conditions in their Environment Agency (EA) permit to enable the Gilberdyke Tip to be closed, and for the landfill gases to be used to generate electricity on the site for the next 25 years or so.

“The meeting was very difficult because emotions about this site are, and have been for a long time, very high.  It is probably best summed up by the phrase heard more than once, “The community feels that it has been raped by the tip operators, who now begrudgingly want to be seen to be doing the right thing as tipping of waste on the site is allegedly coming to an end”.

Many thought it was all about greed and the obscene amounts of money being made by City Plant Ltd with scant regard to the misery they have created. 

Accuracy of Statements in the Application

Residents, who had read the weighty application, had noted a number of inaccuracies or to put it more bluntly untrue statements in the application.  Some were aware, and made reference to the untrue statements in the 2005 application which have caused considerable problems with interpreting approvals for heights and volumes.  It was clear from the meeting that it was in nobody's interest for this to recur.

It was suggested that it would be appropriate for City Plant Ltd to withdraw the application so that the document can be considered in more detail and presented back to the EA in such a way that it is at least consistent throughout, and carries no obvious errors or contradictions.

It was felt that the authors of the application may want to meet with residents so that these "anomalies" are bottomed out. 

Should the company refuse, then it seems appropriate that the EA should reject the application on the basis that it is not possible to judge the application properly in its present form.

Environmental Considerations 

Considerable doubt was cast on how the Leachate, Surface Water and Landfill Gas would be handled on the site.

There was concern about how the landfill gases are to be dealt with over future years, the options of simply burning off the gas or using is to generate electricity were both considered.  Both methods have the potential to create harm to residents and it was agreed to ask an Environment Agency scientist to come and answer residents’ concerns about harmful emissions.

Apart from the environmental concerns about how the gas is dealt with, there was a very strong feeling that any income from the generation of electricity from waste that has been unlawfully tipped should flow at least in part to the local community to try and undo the damage to the villages. This is something that will need to be handled by ERYC via a 106 agreement. There was a suggestion that a significant percentage of the gross income from electricity generation be given annually to Gilberdyke and Newport parish councils.

A working group of residents was established to look at all environmental aspects of the application, which will put together a community consultation reply and communicate concerns directly with the EA and ERYC.

Capping and Landscaping

The unanimous view of the residents who attended the meeting was that the community want a capping solution that includes trees to be planted across the flanks and plateau of the site. They would prefer to include in the mix of species to be planted on the plateau trees that can have TPO's applied to them to reduce the risk that the site could be opened up again at any point in the future.

The type of capping was also raised and discussed at length. Concern was expressed about the use of Bentonite rather than clay, and whether a Bentonite capping would adapt and not shear or pull apart due to the change of profile as the mound suffers substantial differential settlement over the ensuing years as the recently deposited waste settles by perhaps as much as 30% - whilst the oldest parts of the tip settles by as little as 5%.  There were fears that if the capping is ruptured it would introduce considerable leakage of rainwater into the waste pile, causing pollution. It appears that the City Plant Ltd consultants TerraConsult may well be aware of this.

Another working group of residents was established to look at the capping and landscaping to again feed into a community consultation reply.

Conflict between EA and ERYC Approvals

It was confirmed that as well as the application to vary the permit conditions made to the EA, a retrospective planning application is to be submitted imminently to the ERYC to regularise the heights and landscaping.  Concern was raised that there was a risk of the two approvals being out of synch. Because the ERYC Officers can only make recommendations to the planning committee, the position of the council can only be established by the Planning Committee. Normally planning applications are determined by the local council in liaison with the other agencies such as the EA. It was therefore suggested that the sensible route, to avoid a conflict between the two approvals, must be for the planning application be determined first and the EA permission must then agree entirely with the limits of the planning consent.

Environment Agency to consult with residents over Gilberdyke Landfill Site

Concern has been raised over an application by Gilberdyke Tip operators City Plant Ltd to vary the conditions of the permit under which they operate.

The reality is that tipping of waste at the site is coming to an end this was confirmed by Kevin Wanlass of City Plant on Friday, and again yesterday, who said that the tipping of waste on the site will cease in some 4 months’ time.

This is evidenced by figures provided by the company to the EA showing that as of last week there is only some 55,000 cubic meters of void space left to fill. The tipping of capping and landscaping materials will stop some months after that.The proposals being put forward by City Plant Ltd are now out for consultation with the local community, who have until 17th August 2012 (previously 10th August) to respond.

The variation of the permit will not extend the life of the site. Its main purpose is to show how the operator proposes to complete the site and bring it towards closure.The proposals have been communicated to residents via an EA Newsletter delivered to houses in the area. Although the weighty application document has not been widely accessible, it is available in electronic form.

The main variations requested by City Plant Ltd are:

· They want to increase the amount of waste which they are permitted to bring onto the site every year from 70,000 tonnes to 200,000 tonnes.

· They want to alter the contours of the site as described in the permit. This would enable them to keep the contours of the site as they are now. They also want to install gas engines as part of improvements to the gas management of the site (to generate electricity from the landfill gas).

The consultation is on the second of the above with the first, regarding tonnages, being somewhat retrospective as the original draft proposal was put forward by City Plant Ltd as long ago as last November. Quite clearly we have seen HGV movements over recent months well in excess of those expected if tipping was limited to 70,000 tonnes per annum. In fact vehicle movements to the site have been slowly falling over recent weeks. The levels of up to 20m that are being asked for are broadly those as of now. These were enforced by the EA at the beginning of the year.

There are some new issues around how the site is to be capped off using a geotextile type bentonite carpet or membrane covered with topsoil rather than the clay capping and top soil approved currently. There are also some changes to the landscaping, and there is the installation of the generators that are to utilise the landfill gases for the next 25 years or so, all of which I have concerns about and will be looking for independent reassurances.

The company appear to want to get the generators up and running as soon as possible to start raking in the cash – it is my understanding that for them to do this the site will have to be capped and formally closed off.

In a nutshell it appears the Environment Agency’s leaflet has created undue concern, when in fact the request to increase the tipping from 70,000 tonnes to 200,000 tonnes per year is more like a crossing of the t’s and a dotting of the i’s.

City Plant Ltd has also confirmed that the long awaited planning application to regularise the height and contours of the site and a restorative plan are to be submitted to the ERYC next week.

I am told that both the application to the EA to vary the conditions and the planning application contain the same facts, figures and drawings unlike previously, and I hope that this time both can be dealt with simultaneously and without any contradictions.

I have a copy of the application submitted to the Environment Agency by City Plant Ltd which I can certainly email to anyone who wants it – but please beware this is a long and somewhat technical document.

A public meeting is to be held on Wednesday 18th July at 7:30pm in Newport Village Hall to enable a community response to the request to vary the EA permit conditions be formulated and agreed.

A ‘mistake’ blamed for gross over-tipping on Gilberdyke Landfill site

Spin, glossy photographs, breath-taking arrogance, errors and shocking confessions when confronted by the media and residents.  This was the Gilberdyke Landfill exhibition (public consultation event) held by Tip operators City Plant Ltd last Thursday.  If this was the Tip owners attempt to win over public support, then it completely backfired, especially when City Plant consultant and company front man Kevin Wanlass stated that the over tipping on the site to levels twice the permitted height was simply a mistake.  This incredible revelation was recorded and duly aired on Look North (see below).

So then, it all comes down to ‘a mistake’, a mistake that has made the faceless Directors of City Plant Ltd an absolute fortune - a fortune the majority of Gilberdyke and Newport residents can only dream about.  Money made through a cynical manipulation of the system, and shocking inaction by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) and particularly the Environment Agency (EA) as the two bodies that should have protected those residents.  In the eyes of many the ERYC and the EA have been at worse complicit and at best lacking courage, both having rolled over and allowed this whole sorry saga to continue, month after month.

It is clear the ‘mistake’ was made quite soon after City Plant Ltd became interested in the site. The single glaring question that needs to be answered is, when the ‘mistake’ was realised why did they not stop and take immediate action to rectify the situation? 

People are not stupid and the authorities should not treat them as such. The question residents rightly want answered is why, even after a ‘mistake’ was made, was the tipping of thousands upon thousands of tons of waste permitted to continue and the Company Directors allowed to make obscene amounts of cash?

It is not acceptable for the Company to come forward with the feeble attempt at an apology that we saw on Look North; I simply do not believe that the City Plant ‘unintentionally’ broke the planning conditions.  Why did they uncap previously capped off areas of the tip to add more waste – was that an accident too? We all know what the height condition was in the planning approval – I’ve chaired enough tip liaison group meetings with City Plant, ERYC Planners and the EA where the height of the tip and volumes of waste entering the site was discussed at length and I had stated that a compromise had to be reached where tipping of waste had to stop as soon as possible.  Needless to say, we have seen very little compromise from City Plant Ltd as they continued to rake in the cash.

So we are now to see a retrospective planning application submitted to the ERYC to allow the finished area of the Tip to remain at its present height, whilst allowing waste to be tipped until the remaining void space is deemed full at some time between November 2012 and Feb 2013.  Some would say this is planning through the back door and ask why it has been allowed to happen.

Not only is the Tip height greater than the planning consent, the profile is very different; the approved shape was for gently sloping sides to a relatively small top, but what we see now in something akin to Ayers Rock with steep sides and a large top. It does not take a genius to work out that this change of profile is a result of over-tipping gargantuan amounts of waste. The planning consent deals specifically with the visual amenity of the site (i.e. what it looks like) therefore the ERYC legal people have some questions to answer as to why this has been allowed to happen, and why enforcement has not been forthcoming.  Was this a result of a ‘mistake’ too?  The recently coined noun ‘omnishambles’ is one that springs to mind in this particular context.

To conclude on a positive note, the exhibition did include a timescale for the completion of the tip – tipping of waste would stop between November 2012 and February 2013 and capping and restoration completed by November 2013. So no more massive waste lorries entering the site after next February, and no more tipper wagons carrying restorative materials by November 2013 – a belated and small relief to the long-suffering residents of Gilberdyke and Newport.

Tip Exhibition comes far too late

City Plant Ltd, the operators of the controversial landfill site between Gilberdyke and Newport are to hold an exhibition or ‘Public Consultation Day’ where they are to display their future plans for the tip. The exhibition is to be held between 2pm and 7pm tomorrow (Thursday 24th May 2012) at the Newport Village Hall.

The exhibition is to include information on, scheduled timescal...es for completion of the tip, the phased plan, capping, restoration, surface water plans, gas management and future installations.

 I certainly welcome this change of approach from City Plant Ltd. but feel it is way too late in the process, with the horse having well and truly bolted leaving in its wake stink, litter, mud, excessive HGV movements and a community feeling somewhat abused by the Company.

The overwhelming feeling within the communities of Newport and Gilberdyke is that they have suffered enough, they have been let down by the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and the Environment Agency, and in not knowing when it was going to end - had to endure something akin to a prison sentence without the chance of parole. Residents just want to see the tip completed and capped off, and a suitable gas management system installed as soon as possible, and if this exhibition serves to reassure residents that this will happen sooner rather than later, it can only be a good thing.

I therefore urge as many people as possible to attend the event, look at and listen to what City Plant have to say, but most importantly put forward their concerns and questions. As chairman of the Landfill Site Liaison Committee I plan to there for most of the time to listen to what is said.

Ongoing saga of Gilberdyke Tip problems continue

Yet another week of complaints and personally witnessing horrendous smell, HGV movements and litter associated with the Gilberdyke Landfill Site – and as more information comes to light, an increasing frustration with the Environment Agency.

The whole sorry saga of the Gilberdyke tip has been unbelievable and I cannot comprehend how that over the past 18 months a tip operator could come in, and through its selfish actions cause so much misery and suffering for local residents, with smell, vehicle movements and mess. AND all this right under the noses of the Environment Agency and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council, both of which have been reluctant to act.

The Environment Agency in particular, who have responsibility for day to day monitoring of the Tip, waste volumes, and smell need to answer an awful lot of questions as to how and why they have allowed this diabolical situation to develop.

My personal feelings are that once the volume of waste on the Tip became greater than that allowed in the height and contours of the planning consent we had a serious problem. To argue about resettlement levels and post settlement levels is quite ridiculous – how would a height condition be imposed in 25 years’ time? If the height was above consented levels would the operator be required to uncap the Tip and removed waste at that point – I think not!

For quite a while now residents have been telling me that their priority was time related and they wanted the Tip closed and capped off as soon as possible, the HGV movements to and from the site to stop, and a suitable gas management system installed to deal with landfill gases. Gilberdyke Tip operators City Plant Ltd. have put up a website, delivered a glossy leaflet to residents, and is planning to hold an exhibition.

But for me this is far too late in the process. If, as I suspect this a cynical attempt at some form of contrition then it will not wash with me, the damage has already been done. It should not be lost on City Plant Ltd that the delivery of the leaflet with its disingenuous statements particularly around numbers of vehicle movements, precipitated further direct action by the residents, when they effectively blocked the access road recently.

I certainly congratulate the residents and particularly Newport Parish Council Chairman Roy Hunt, for it is their direct and indirect actions we have seen over the months that has brought the commitment from City Plant to fill and cap off the site. But it is after far too much and far too late in the process, we should never have seen so much waste entering the site and the Environment Agency has been found seriously wanting as they are the regulatory body responsible for allowing this debacle to develop.

When City Plant Ltd.’s planning application to ‘regularise the height and profile of the site’ is submitted to the ERYC the opportunity must be taken to impose a time condition on the site to ensure no further waste is permitted to enter the site after a given date whether the site is deemed ‘full’ or not by City Plant.

I don’t want to see any more ‘ifs or buts’ from City Plant Ltd, no more excuses and no more applications for time or volume extensions for the Tip. The sooner this sorry saga, where a company with very few actual assets, but with well-heeled directors, has descended upon and subjected a community to sheer misery comes to an end the better.

I urge the residents to continue their actions, early next week Roy Hunt and I are yet again meeting with the Environment Agency senior managers. We will be pushing for action to have the Tip completed, capped off and a suitable gas management system installed much sooner than the timeframe being put forward by City Plant Ltd.

Residents support taking legal action against Gilberdyke Tip

The depressing saga of the Gilberdyke landfill site continues with waste still pouring into the tip – the 100s of HGVs coming through Newport and particularly along the residential Thimble Hall Lane bringing in the waste is intolerable for the local community.

At a recent public meeting there was uninimous support for looking to take legal action regarding the operation of the Tip.

Over the last month the level of the tip has been reduced slightly and the top levelled as a result of enforcement action by the Environment Agency (EA), meaning that the villages of Newport and Gilberdyke are overlooked by their very own Table Mountain, reaching up into the sky to a height over twice the permitted level in the ERYC planning consent – so we have the unbelievable situation where the EA has enforced a height on the tip that is way above the legal limit of the planning consent – in the eyes of many it appears the Agency have acted unlawfully.

This is compounded by the amounts of waste blown out of the trucks littering the highway verges and gardens, to say nothing of the overpowering stench coming from the site.

The residents have had enough and well over a hundred attended a public meeting held in Newport on Saturday (14th April) where it was decided they take things into their own hands by investigating the possibility of using a firm of environmental solicitors with a proven track record to take action on their behalf in view of the lack of effective enforcement action. A recent high court ruling would suggest that there is a good case against those responsible for what the villagers have had to suffer over past year. There is also a possibility that this may be on a “no win, no fee” basis.

It was explained that the primary purpose of the meeting was to establish if residents supported taking legal action to claim compensation for nuisance. Given the limited notice of the meeting and the fact that only residents living in close proximity to the tip were invited, attendance of over a hundred and a dozen or so apologies suggested that there is widespread support, and the decision to pursue things further was totally unanimous.

Newport Parish Council Chairman Roy Hunt said, “The option of legal action is at an early stage, but solicitors have been contacted who are in the process of obtaining information and documentation from a range of sources, including the Environment Agency (EA) and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC)”.

It was made clear that a decision still had to be made against whom potential litigation could be served, and that the decision would be a complex one. It was also agreed that although the preference would be to proceed on a no-win, no-fee basis, it might be that some costs would need to be incurred by residents who wanted to be included in a class action for damages.

Roy Hunt continued to give the background to two successful legal actions; the first against a company in Hartlepool, where a class action by the residents influenced the closing of the tip. The second was against Biffa where it is now established in law that air pollution is considered a nuisance in the legal definition for which damages can be awarded to residents who are adversely affected.

I explained how important it was that so many people had attended as it sent out a clear message that enough was enough, and that although the enforcement processes surrounding the Tip was complex something had to be done. There was confusion as to whether the planning conditions referred to the pre-settlement heights at the time the tip is completed or the post-settlement levels after 25 years. In my opinion it was ridiculous to expect that after 25 years if the Tip had not settled to the agreed heights then it would be opened up and waste removed to ensure the planning consent was complied with.

I also stated that it was beyond comprehension that the Environment Agency had enforced their own permit condition regarding the tip height, which was over twice the height of the legal height in the Council’s planning consent and questioned whether it was lawful for them to have done this.

I concluded by asking if people agreed with me that the priority was time related and that the Tip be closed and capped off as soon as possible, the HGV movements to and from the site to stop, and a suitable gas management system installed to deal with landfill gases – there was unanimous support for this. The majority did not want to see waste having to be removed from the site in the event of enforcement, although there were a significant minority who indicated they would like to see the company compelled to remove waste to satisfy the height condition in the planning consent.

Residents were asked to give their contact details if they felt that they had suffered from nuisance as a result of the landfill site being in operation and if they felt they would be willing to contribute to a “fighting fund” should one be necessary to pursue an action. It is thought all provided their details and a number were willing to contribute.

Gilberdyke / Newport Tip woes continue

Last evenings meeting of the Tip Liaison Committee was very frustrating, not only because no representative from the Environment Agency turned up – but descended further when it was confirmed that work had been carried out on the site last Saturday afternoon and all day Sunday which was outside the permitted hours of operation. This created an horrendous stink and spoiled the otherwise sunny weekend for a number of residents.

This working is only permitted if approved by the Council and the Agency – needless to say an email exchange between City Plant and the Agency clearly states that it was planned to ‘doze waste into the void over the weekend’. There is no evidence that the East Riding of Yorkshire Council approved the work.

To move clay or restoration materials over a weekend when people are at home is one thing, but to deliberately move stinking waste around the site is something totally different, and in my opinion totally unacceptable, and says a lot about City Plant Ltd.

The only conciliation is that the City Plant Ltd have apologised to Roy Hunt and I as the Community Representatives for not letting us know about the planned work, and confirmed that there will be no further weekend working in the foreseeable future.

I have received the following update form the Agency regarding the problematic landfill site.

Current situation as of 15th March 2012

City Plant Ltd have now begun to move waste from the overtipped areas of the site to other areas of the landfill.

* The deadline for this to be complete is the end of May 2012
* Waste will continue to be brought into the site during this process

Odour

We are aware there have been odour issues with the site in the past and despite considerable efforts to address these the problem has not been fully resolved.

As with any landfill site, there will always be some odour while fresh waste is being brought onto the site. However, much of the odour is also caused by landfill gas (produced as the waste decomposes). The existing system for extracting and burning gas at the site was upgraded in late 2011 and further improvements have been made this year, although there is still work to be done.

Unfortunately, moving the waste is likely to make the odour worse in the short term as the waste being moved may have been at the site for up to 6 months. While measures to limit the odour will be taken it is not possible to stop all odours from the excavation and movement of waste.

However, while moving the waste will have a short term negative impact, it does mean that by the end of May the majority of the site will be in a condition where it can be sealed with a cap and covered with soils for the planting scheme to commence. This also means that the site's gas extraction system can be expanded to collect and burn most of the landfill gas produced by the waste.

We will expect the operator to cap and restore the site and install additional gas extraction as soon possible after the waste has been moved within the site. We will update you on the timescale for this work as soon as we can.

City Plant Ltd agrees to reduce the height of the Gilberdyke / Newport Tip

As the clock was ticking down on the Gilberdyke/Newport Landfill Site Tip operators City Plant Ltd agreed to move around 70,000 cubic metres of waste from overtipped areas of the site to bring the height down to the levels stipulated in the Environment Agency permit. The proposal has been accepted and approved by the Agency following an Enforcement Notice served last month because the tip operator was not complying with the permit’s condition regarding height. City Plant Ltd has now agreed to reduce the waste to levels set out in the permit by using available capacity in other areas of the site.

The company has also demonstrated that there will be remaining capacity on the site even after the waste has been moved. This has been independently verified by Environment Agency contractors who spent a day at the landfill to make sure this was a workable solution.

It has been confirmed that the Environment Agency has withdrawn the original notice and served City Plant Ltd with a revised Enforcement Notice which allows the company to resume taking in waste - but stipulates that it must act on its commitment to reduce the height of the landfill in certain areas. The operator has two months to appeal against the revised notice.

Environment Agency Regulatory Officer Leigh Sayers said: “We are pleased that City Plant Ltd has responded promptly to our enforcement action and come up with a viable solution. The notice has served its purpose and as a result the company will no longer be prevented from taking in waste. “It is important that we control the amount of waste at the site and we will be making sure that City Plant Ltd puts its plan in place and complies with its permit. Our action has delivered a positive result which could see the site filled earlier than anticipated.”

The visual height of the landfill is the responsibility of East Riding of Yorkshire Council as the local planning authority.

I am a pleasantly surprised that City Plant Ltd has undertaken to reduce the height of the Tip to the levels stipulated in the permit, and this should not be taken lightly. Clearly the threat of a stop notice served to focus the minds of the company. There is no doubt that the Environment Agency had to lift the stop notice when the Company committed to reducing the height to the required level. What is not clear is the course of action the East Riding of Yorkshire Council will take as far as enforcement, because the levels in the EA permit are somewhat higher than those levels conditioned in the recent planning consent issued to City Plant Ltd.

Clock Ticks Down For Gilberdyke / Newport Tip Operators

As Chairman of the Gilberdyke/Newport Landfill Site Liaison Committee it is my understanding that unless a very late agreement is reached, as from mid-night tonight the Tip will be subject to an Environment Agency (EA) stop notice, meaning that no more waste will be permitted to enter the site until an acceptable plan to reduce the height of the waste mountain is put forward by site operators City Plant Ltd. which importantly must meet with the approval of the Environment Agency.

It should be noted that if agreement is not reached waste WILL NOT be allowed to enter the site, but some restoration (or engineering materials) such as soil, rubble and shredded tyres will be permitted, therefore we may see HGV movements from time to time.

On talking to the Council’s officers this morning I am reassured that the Tip is one of the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) priorities, and officers are watching developments over the next couple of days with interest before considering what action the Council will take, I know that any enforcement action requires a methodical approach, which invariably takes time, but the first steps have been taken including measuring the precise height of the Tip last autumn, and recently sending the first stage of enforcement letter.

It is important to recognise that although the ERYC and the EA are both regulatory bodies they have been able and continue to work together to find solutions to the problems with the Tip , with a good example being the Council measuring the tip height and obviously sharing this with the Agency to prevent duplication. Unfortunately the ownership of the site changed in mid-December of last year which has made things difficult as the two regulatory bodies have had to deal with different people.

To reduce the height of the Tip will mean that waste will have to be uncapped and pushed into the remaining void space at the west of the site; this would create an almighty stink but it would be temporary, before it is recapped. What is not known is if there is sufficient capacity in the void to allow this to happen – or conversely if any space would remain to allow further tipping.

One thing is for certain; Whatever happens, I would not like to see any lorry loads of waste being removed from the site, as this would be intolerable for residents.

Ultimately I would like to see the tip filled, capped off and completed as soon as possible – and for HGV movements through our villages, to and from the site to stop.

I would also like to see something done with the gas that the capped off tip will produce consistently for the next 25 years, because I certainly don’t want the site to stink for another half a generation.

What happens if the Gilberdyke Tip operators walk away from the site?

In view of the Environment Agency issuing the enforcement notice against the Gilberdyke Tip owners City Plant Ltd. it raises the question as to what happens if the Directors decide in view of the action, to fold the company or walk away from the site?

This has concerned me for a while and is something I have raised on a number of occasions after the scenario was first mentioned by residents. After some investigation, answers from City Plant Ltd. and input from the Environment Agency (EA), it would seem that if the City Plant Ltd. Directors were to walk away from the site or folded the company for whatever reason, there is financial provision of up to £1.2 million for the tip to be capped off, restored and maintained as required - but is it adequate, and if not is there an asset value to the tip?

The basis of the provision is found in the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 [SI 2007 3538] with reference to Waste Management licensing and pollution prevention and control regimes from 6th April 2008.

The owner or applicant for an Environmental Permit (EP) must be able to provide adequate financial provision to meet the obligations of the permit. Some of these sites can include landfill with aftercare costs for a period of up to sixty years after closure.

Part of the solution can include a security bond, which provides an indemnity for the amount specified by the EA as 'financial provision'. The bond is not required if the client has sufficient 'upfront' funds. In the case of the Gilberdyke Landfill site approximately £650,000 is invested in a FillSecure bond, which has the potential to generate income to cover costs of approximately £1.2million. The FillSecure solution has been approved by the Environment Agency for ‘general application, and consists of a funding arrangement suitable for the cost effective management of financial provisions as required under EP permits to satisfy the long-term aftercare requirement, as well as operational and restoration costs’.

It is my understanding that unless this ‘financial provision’ had been put in place December’s transfer of the Environmental Permit from the previous owner to City Plant Ltd would not have taken place or been ratified by the Environment Agency. It has been confirmed that the Agency took the opportunity to revise the ‘financial provision’ to regularise the costs and to ensure that due to the changes in the site infrastructure and environmental requirements/guidance, any after care costs would be covered.

I am confident that in the event something does happen with City Plant Ltd, monies are available to the Environment Agency from this fund for the tip to be capped off, restored and maintained BUT is this amount of ‘financial provision’ based on the conditions of the EA permit, and since the height of the tip is way over, and in breach of the approved height limits as detailed in the permit, therefore is this provision now adequate?

The tip itself may not have a physical asset value but the methane gas caught within and being constantly produced for a significant number of years to come certainly does have a value, especially if it can be used to power electric generators to produce clean renewable energy like we see at other landfill sites. It is therefore reassuring that not only is there a significant bond in place, there appears to be a very saleable asset which should ensure the tips long term future care and maintenance.

Gilberdyke landfill site ordered to stop taking waste

Today the Environment Agency issued a notice to stop any more waste entering the Gilberdyke Landfill site; this as a result of the operator City Plant Ltd still not complying with its environmental permit. As from 13th February 2012, waste cannot be brought on to the site until the level of waste in the landfill has been reduced to those set out in the permit.

The operator will also have to demonstrate to the Environment Agency that there is sufficient capacity left in the site to start taking in waste, once the level has been reduced. They will then have three months to reduce the site to the agreed levels.

A decision has not yet been made about City Plant Ltd.’s application to increase the annual tonnage limits on the permit from 70,000 tons per annum to 200,000 tons.

The visual height of the landfill is the responsibility of East Riding of Yorkshire Council as the local planning authority, and just last week the Council has took the first step to enforce a height reduction on the site, by formally requesting from the tip operators a timescale for bringing the height to the permitted level. A response is required by 2nd February 2012. Unfortunately at around the same time City Plant Ltd submitted a scoping request to the Council to regularise the height of the tip at its present level, this serves to delay the process.

I have little sympathy for City Plant Ltd – they have put the local communities through the mincer with foul smells, dust, mud, litter and intolerable amounts of HGV movements. The Company has played the system, by cynically and deliberately tipping quantities of waste far in excess of allowed annual quantities and at heights above double what is permitted - then submitting a retrospective requests to the EA to increase the annual tonnage and a scoping request/planning application to the ERYC to increase the tip height. But as with most things – what goes around comes around.

Although this is not the end of the matter, the Environment Agency has demonstrated it has the teeth and is prepared to use them. It is now up to City Plant Ltd, they have to come up with a realistic and acceptable plan or they will tip no more after 13th February 2012.

Environment Agency regulatory officer Matthew Woollin said: “It’s important that we control the amount of waste at the site because we issue the permit based on a set figure to protect the environment. We understand the community’s concerns and we are working hard to resolve this issue.”

To get to this stage has taken a great deal of patient work by a number of people over what seems like an eternity, and I know that residents have complained that nothing had been happening, but today we see the result. Many thanks go to Newport Parish Council and Chairman Roy Hunt in particular, residents of both Newport and Gilberdyke who never gave up the fight, and the local EA officers who have made this important step possible.

City Plant Ltd has two months to appeal against the Environment Agency notice.

Tip Operators Look To Heap More Misery On Gilberdyke & Newport Residents

At present City Plant Ltd, the owners and operators of the Gilberdyke Landfill Site have a licence that allows them to input about 70,000 tonnes of waste per annum into the tip. They have recently applied for a licence that, if approved, would almost triple this level to 200,000 tonnes.

I have serious concerns regarding the potential for over filling this site especially when it is clear the height limit has already been exceeded by a considerable amount. I would like to see this tip filled to the approved height and capacity, capped with clay, and appropriately landscaped as soon as possible.

I would therefore urge the Environment Agency to consider the following arguments for rejecting the application:

Currently, waste being deposited at the site is being tipped at heights that are above the limits allowed by both the Environment Agency (EA) and East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC).

It is widely felt that the environmental impact we have seen from moving the waste around the site has a significantly negative effect on the amenity of Newport due to the increase in gases escaping from the waste. I want, as soon as possible, for the site to move to a situation where waste is deposited, left in situ and capped at the correct height. To achieve this will involve waste being moved from its present location above the approved height down to a compliant level, and accept this will generate further smells in the short term. It seems to me that until the height limits are adhered to, it would make more sense to stop the input of further waste onto this site rather than allow an almost three-fold increase.

Whilst it is understood that the EA and ERYC are separate organisations, the EA are aware that the planning application made in March last year stated very clearly that the void, or remaining capacity of the site, was then 104,000 tonnes. From the vehicle counts carried out by residents and the average weight carried by the lorries, it is reasonable to estimate that between 60 and 70 vehicles per day (5 days per week) visit the site carrying an average of between 15 and 20 tonnes (this is a City Plant Ltd estimate). This would suggest that since April between 180,000 and 280,000 tonnes of material have been deposited already. Thus, either the site already has more material deposited than it can hold or the 104,000 tonne figure was inaccurate.

Given the doubt about the remaining capacity of the tip, surely any application to increase waste inputs can only be established after a thorough survey has been carried out to determine any remaining capacity. Again, the threat to the amenity of the villages of Gilberdyke and Newport if it transpires that thousands of tonnes of waste have, at a later date, to be removed from the site, must weigh against the application

I am confident that the EA and ERYC will work together, and this expectation is shared by residents, to ensure that neither organisations’ actions leads to a situation whereby an approval from one authority could negatively impact a condition imposed by the other. Whilst some might understand that the EA works to different rules, the general public is less understanding and would see as bizarre a situation occurring whereby the EA sanction higher levels of tipping on a site that may already be overfull from a planning perspective.

The EA is currently in a position where there are two breaches of permit notices outstanding and there are other problems that they are aware of. Unfortunately, the EA transferred the environmental permit to City Plant Ltd when the EA were aware that the site was in breach of permit. Having lost that opportunity to insist that the site be made compliant before transferring the licence, there is now a second opportunity to withhold approval of this application until the site is made compliant.

If it transpires that the current annual waste input level to the site has already been exceeded, surely all tipping should be stopped until such time as a new licence is issued – This would certainly focus the minds.

Should anyone also like to object to (or support) this application to increase the amount of waste that can be tipped on the site, letters of emails can be sent to the following:

Matthew Woollin
Environment Agency (Willerby)
1 Viking Close
Great Gutter Lane (East)
Willerby
Hull
HU10 6DE
e-mail: matthew.woollin@environment-agency.gov.uk

Appalling Gilberdyke Tip Problems Given Oxygen Of Publicity

The appalling problems with the Gilberdyke Tip were well and truly brought out into the open yesterday, when we saw the East Riding Mail, Radio Humberside, KCFM, and both local TV News programmes namely Look North and Calendar running the story, which first appeared in the Goole Times last week.

Many thanks to Kevin Clifford, Parish Council Chairman Roy Hunt, and all those who took part in Dave Burns' phone in on Radio Humberside yesterday morning which can be found on the BBC iplayer here (my contribution is at 2hrs 6mins in)

The East Riding Mail is running the story again today and can be found here

I hope the fact that the media are running this story so powerfully yesterday and today will give the required impetus to influence the decision makers into action.

Are those lights from a 'piste machine' on a ski slope or just Gilberdyke's Landfill Mountain?

I heard an interesting comment from a Gilberdyke resident over the weekend, “I feel like I’m on a skiing holiday, when every evening I look across to see a piste machine battering the ski slopes of the mountain over there.”

Needless to say he was referring to the lights from the machinery working on the Gilberdyke Tip, which has grown to such heights to be frankly laughable, if it was not so serious.

I recently chaired a difficult meeting of the Tip Liaison Committee when it was confirmed that the tip has recently changed hands and is now both owned and operated by City Plant Ltd, it was also established that the operators had deliberately breached the planning conditions by tipping at considerable heights above the permitted 8.0m level, with the reality being that the company have actually tipped to a level which has effectively doubled the permitted height, and they had recently breached the Environment Agency permit regarding mud on the roads surrounding the site. But most worryingly, due to ‘misunderstandings during the planning process’ the community was now faced with a further two years tipping to fill or perhaps overfill the site rather than the one year envisaged.

The City Plant Ltd consultant, Kevin Wanlass, was asked when the levels of the tip would be reduced to the permitted height; I was very disturbed to have my fears confirmed that instead of reducing the tip height to the permitted 8m level, the operators are likely to submit a planning application to maintain the existing levels. I view this as a disgraceful, deliberate and cynical ploy on the part of City Plant Ltd, and I will be consulting with the East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) to take appropriate action to make the height of the tip compliant as soon as possible.

I made it quite clear that I was not happy for anything other than the permitted heights to be met on the site and it was highly unlikely that anything other than this would be supported by the local community.

Fellow community representative and Newport Parish Council Chairman Roy Hunt and I also raised the issue of mud on the roads from the tip, namely Newport’s Leatherdog Lane and Thimblehall Lane, and the many complaints received. It was confirmed that many calls of complaint had been received by the ERYC, the Environment Agency and the Parish Council; it was interesting that one of the tip representatives said it was only muddy on one day; this was robustly challenged and contradicted by Roy Hunt, who confirmed that he’d witnessed and had photographs of mud on a number of consecutive days.

I find the mud on the road to be totally unacceptable, and subsequent to the meeting rode along the roads, and witnessed the crude attempts at wheel washing by the operators. I raised this issue again with the Environment Agency the following week and demanded action. It was later confirmed that on 20th December an enforcement notice on City Plant Ltd was issued for a breach of the permit conditions relating to mud. Failure to comply with the notice by the end of January will be an offence, which I am hoping will spur City Plant Ltd into installing proper facilities as soon as possible to stop the mud leaving the site rather than trying to clean the roads with road-sweepers afterwards. It seems incredible that this site was allowed to continue to operate after the previous facilities were removed with the obvious impact on road users, particularly during wet weather.

The operators have installed gas collection equipment on the tip, including a new gas flare at the site entrance, although very welcome as this should reduce some of the foul stink emanating from the site, the gas flare was installed without planning consent.

Clarification was also sought regarding lorries NOT using the site weighbridge, it was alleged by City Plant Ltd. that all lorries entering the site to tip waste passed over the weighbridge, although lorries bringing material to the site for engineering operations would not as they were not delivering waste. Further clarification was sought on this by the community representatives because of multiple claims that lorries were seen entering and leaving the site without passing over the weighbridge either on entry or exit.

It was established that any complaints from residents about the operation of the tip should be made to the Environment Agency by telephone on 0800 807060.

The issue of site working outside the permitted hours of operation was also raised. I stated that it would be a lot better for the local community if the company could let people know what was happening on the site and what measures they were being taken to resolve any problems. A pro-active as opposed to a re-active approach should be promoted. The Council Planning Officer said that the operators should let the local Council know if they were planning on doing any work outside the parameters of the planning permission. This could then be shared with community representatives and agreement reached before the activity took place.