1

Latest information on Oak Tree Farm Fire, Slitting Mill, Rugeley Updated: December 2016

SECTION 1: Latest Information Update

It’s been a while since we updated you on the actions being taken following the fire at Oak Tree Farm in September 2016. There are still a number of organisations actively involved in dealing with this incident and here are the latest updates we would like to share with you.

Regulatory and enforcement actionThe responsibility for the situation rests with the landowner, Mr Denis Ward and the site operator, Steven Reeves-Morgan. The enforcement agencies regulating the site have operated within the constraints of the law, which obliges them to act in a reasonable and proportionate manner, in the period leading up to the fire.

As part of the on-going multi-agency approach, all enforcement and legal options are being considered to prevent further waste activity and fire risk at this site. Both the landowner and site operator will, ultimately, be held to account for their actions.

The Environment Agency has confirmed that there is an ongoing investigation into waste activities at this site, including the source of the waste. The Environment Agency has also contacted local waste carriers who may have used the site in the past asking them to take waste to alternative legal waste sites.

Staffordshire County Council has confirmed that an Enforcement Notice is still in place however, the majority of the waste referred to in the Notice was set on fire and is still burning. Therefore, it would not be safe to remove the waste material until the fire has burnt out.

The County Council is also pursuing injunctive relief and successfully obtained an Interim Order on 14 November 2016. The Order was served on Denis Ward and Steven Reeves-Morgan, who had been bringing waste onto the site unlawfully. This means they must not bring waste onto the site, not recycle or burn any waste or disturb the waste which is currently burning. In addition, they cannot remove any waste unless it is being taken to an authorised site. Any breach of the Order could result in a fine, assets being seized or imprisonment. A full Order can be made after a trial, which should take place in early 2017. The County Council hopes to obtain a

2

final injunction that will require the land to be cleared of all waste when it is safe to do so.

Cannock Chase District Council has confirmed that its officers will continue to monitor activities at the site to determine if any offences are occurring against the laws this Council enforces.

The controlled burn Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service will be reviewing the situation in January 2017. The review will involve using temperature probes all over the stack with the intention of ascertaining the amount of unburned fuel remaining. Once this has been done the Service may have a firmer idea about the timeline for further activity.

Air quality monitoringAir quality results have been consistently low throughout this monitoring period. In light of this, the District Council in consultation with Public Health England has ceased monitoring. The Council will keep the situation under review and will reinstate monitoring should the need arise.

Impact on healthPublic Health England is in contact with the scientific officers on a daily basis regarding the monitoring strategy and continues to support the interpretation of the monitoring results with respect to any potential impacts on public health.

Keeping you informedA range of multi-agency meetings continue to take place at operational and strategic levels to consider the ongoing containment of the incident, regulatory and enforcement action and to prevent further incidents of a similar nature. Updates are being posted on Cannock Chase Council`s website – visit www.cannockchasedc.gov.uk/slittingmill

Useful contactsIf you witness any waste being imported to the site or removed from the site, or the waste being otherwise disturbed, you should contact the Planning Regulation Team at Staffordshire County Council immediately so that it can be investigated. Email: regulation@staffordshire.gov.uk or call 0300 111 8000.

If you witness excessive smoke emissions from the site, contact Cannock Chase District Council on 01543 462621.

3

SECTION 2: Questions & Answers

There have been a number of questions submitted by the general public to all the agencies involved in dealing with the fire that took place at Oak Tree Farm in Slitting Mill on 5 September 2016. This document will provide you with the answers to these questions and provide you with the latest updates about this incident.

Waste site regulatory and enforcement action prior to the fire on 5 September 2016

(Covering questions 1 to 18)

1. Is the occupant licensed for the activities he has been carrying out?

2. What waste permissions/licences does the site owner have?

3. If the owner does have a licence, given that he has committed offences before, how has he continued to hold a licence?

4. If the owner does not have a licence what steps has the council previously taken to stop him from continuing to use his land to stock pile this waste?

5. With the significant amount of waste on the site, it is clear it has been allowed to accumulate for a considerable amount of time, was the Council monitoring this?

6. When does the amount of rubbish on the site reach a level where it constitutes a waste site?

7. Since the first and last prosecution of the landowner, how many complaints have been received about him and what action has been taken about them?” This question might be read as implying that the last prosecution was also the first one. It wasn’t by any means. There have been prosecutions for planning, environmental and mainstream crime.

8. Up until the current fire there were no public complaints since the last prosecution. This is definitely not correct. There were complaints known to me from Brindley Heath Parish Council, Brereton and Ravenhill Parish Council. On 16th March I complained to Cannock Chase District Council Environmental Health (two emails), and Staffordshire County Council in its waste planning capacity (two emails). I was also in contact with Brindley Heath Parish Council.

4

9. The Local Authority have allowed this Land Owner to walk all over them although they have been supplied with sufficient evidence on his various ventures and should be made to answer why they have allowed this to happen.

10. Had the Fire Service visited the site prior to the fire to assess if burning on the site would be safe, considering its proximity to road and rail lines?

11. If the answer to Question 5 is no, having visited the site since the fire and knowing now the amount of waste on the site, would the Fire Service have allowed burning of this waste on the site?

12. What was done following the early notification of EH Dept of wood-chipping and heavy machinery activity on site?

13. We could not see how this already large amount of chippings could be for personal use. Given the history and that the massive wood chipping mound was known by the authorities and that they all had knowledge there was an enforcement notice in force, the question has to be asked, why was it deemed acceptable to do nothing on 05/09/2016 when first alerted to a planned ‘controlled burn’ by Oak Tree Farm?

14. I was advised that Staffordshire County Council has alerted the fire service to the mound of chippings as a potential high risk hazard. This was many weeks before 05/09/2016. What actions have been taken to address these warnings?

15. Are any regular air quality checks undertaken and results available prior to 5 September?

16. Why was it deemed acceptable to allow to continue any activities by the owner after the repeated reckless failures to comply over many years, giving rise to asbestos to be on site repeatedly, and then, after repeated breaches, Mr Ward is granted a permit to produce wood chippings ‘for his pigs bedding’.

17. Why was any permission granted in the first instance for the wood chipping operation?

18. Why was an enforcement notice extension of one month given for removing the mound of wood/rubbish when there had already been in place a substantial allowance of time for removal of the wood/rubbish/material?

Answers:

A waste site is any site which accepts and deposits a form of waste. The need for a permit depends on the quantity, type and treatment of this waste. In September 2015, two Waste Exemptions were registered for the site. These exemptions authorised the chipping, shredding, cutting or pulverising of no more than 500 tonnes of wood waste over a 7 day

5

period and the burning of clean wood generated on the site in the open air. This allowed low risk, low level waste activity to take place at the site, without the need for an environmental permit. Once an exemption has been registered, the site must comply with all the conditions outlined. Where a site is non-compliant the exemption is revoked.

Planning permission for the waste operation is applied for separately to the waste exemption through the local planning authority. Officers from Cannock Chase District Council, the Environment Agency and Staffordshire County Council have regularly monitored activities at Oak Tree Farm.

Cannock Chase District Council prosecuted the landowner in 2011 and 2015 for small scale illegal deposit and treatment of waste by burning. Following this action, the Council made an application for a Criminal Behaviour Order against the landowner in 2015. However, this power requires the Court to be satisfied that “harm, alarm or distress” had been caused to the public. In the 2 year period immediately preceding the convictions in 2015 there had been few complaints, with only 3 complaints recorded at this time. Consequently, Cannock Chase District Council was obliged to withdraw the application as they were unable to demonstrate that the much smaller scale fires at the time - had caused or were likely to cause harm, alarm or distress to any person. Since January 2016, Staffordshire County Council and Cannock Chase District Council can confirm that further complaints have been received in relation to the site.

In October 2015, following the reported concerns over activity at the site to Cannock Chase District Council and the Environment Agency, the Environment Agency visited Oak Tree Farm. At this time the site was found to be in compliance with the conditions of the registered waste exemption.

Cannock Chase District Council notified Staffordshire County Council of the unauthorised site operations on 7 October 2015. Staffordshire County Council Planning Regulation Team wrote to the landowner and operator (at the time this was believed to be a Mr Robinson whose name the Environment Agency’s waste exemption was registered) to advise them that the importation and shredding of wood was a breach of planning control and that they should stop the activity or seek to regularise it through submitting a planning application. Mr Morgan then rang Staffordshire County Council on 16 October 2015 stating that he was the operator and would pursue submitting a planning application. When the landowner asked for pre-application advice in November 2015, it was to use the wood product as animal bedding for use solely on site.

On following visits in December 2015 the volume of wood on site was found to be in excess of the exemption conditions. The Environment Agency informed the operator to stop this non-compliant activity and he was provided with advice and guidance to either apply for a permit or reduce the quantity of wood to within the exemption limit by mid-January 2016. The site continued to fail to comply with the exemption conditions and did not submit a permit application.

On 21 January 2016 Staffordshire County Council’s Planning Regulation and Animal Health Officers visited the site and reiterated to the landowner and operator that there was no planning permission for waste related activities. On 18 February 2016, a planning application

6

was submitted to Staffordshire County Council, which stated that the wood product would be used on site, as well as being exported to other users (different to what was outlined in November 2015). However this was invalid and after allowing Mr Morgan a period of time to submit further information to validate this application, it was returned to the operator on 30 March 2016.

It is important to note that whilst the planning application was still being considered and Staffordshire County Council were in open dialogue with the landowner regarding regularising the breach it was not deemed to be expedient to pursue formal enforcement action.

Staffordshire County Council throughout this period worked closely with Cannock Chase District Council and the Environment Agency and also notified Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service on 8 March 2016 and 18 March 2016 regarding activities on site.

On 1 April 2016 Staffordshire County Council served a Temporary Stop Notice and on 13 May 2016 an Enforcement Notice and Stop Notice were served. This required the site to cease any waste activity or storage on the site by June 2016. It also required all existing waste to be removed by 6 August 2016 and equipment for the exportation of the waste to be taken off site by 13 August 2016.

A one month extension period was given to the landowner as Staffordshire County Council’s waste transfer records demonstrated that some waste had been removed from the site in compliance with the Enforcement Notice. After speaking with the landowner, the County Council had no reason to believe that further waste would not be removed so it was agreed that no criminal prosecutions would be pursued for a further four weeks.

The Environment Agency issued a letter advising the landowner that they were ‘minded to deregister’ their exemption if no action was taken to bring the site into compliance. The site owner did not respond to the letter and the exemptions were deregistered in June 2016. This meant that after June 2016 the site no longer had the legal authority to store waste at this location and needed to provide the Environment Agency with plans to clear the site.

Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service had visited the site several times to deal with smaller fires. The site owner has an order banning him from burning on site due to the amount of waste present. This meant site fires required Fire Service presence to ensure it was controlled. However, other than making fire crews aware of the issues on the site, the Fire Service have no enforcement powers available to make the landowner alter their approach in relation to the use of the land or storage of waste unless there is an immediate threat to life.

Cannock Chase District Council did not conduct air quality monitoring in the area prior to the incident. Officers of the Environmental Health Department did carry out routine observations on site to monitor activity.

7

Non- waste planning permissions

(Covering questions 19 to 20)

19. Why was planning permission initially granted for the erection of the monstrous barn on the site when, prior to that, I believe that the site comprised an open field and little else.

20. Why was planning permission subsequently granted for a dwelling when the landowner, Mr "Paddy" Ward, claimed to be making a living from agricultural activity. He was "keeping" pigs in the loosest possible sense. Records will show that the poor animals spent most of their time as escapees on the Hednesford-Rugeley main road (A460). I understand that he has since been prosecuted for cruelty to animals, although I must stress that this is hearsay and I have no factual knowledge of the situation?

Answers:

Mr Ward has not been prosecuted for offences relating to animal health and welfare and has no record of any conviction. Cannock Chase District Council granted planning permission for a barn under application CH/91/0670 for a cattle shed, store and hay barn on this site. There was no reason to refuse the application at that time.

All planning applications relating to dwellings on the site were refused by Cannock Chase District Council as it was considered there was no justification for a farm worker to live on the site. However, this was appealed by the applicant to the Planning Inspectorate who granted permission for the construction of a bungalow.

5 September 2016 multi –agency response to the incident

(Covering questions 21 to 23)

21. Why was incorrect information on the EH Dept. knowledge of the incident given out when I rang?

22. We could not see how this already large amount of chippings could be for personal use. Given the history and that the massive wood chipping mound was known by the authorities and that they all had knowledge there was an enforcement notice in force, the question has to be asked, why was it deemed acceptable to do nothing on 05/09/2016 when first alerted to a planned ‘controlled burn’ by Oak Tree Farm?

23. Request to be kept fully informed of all meetings and their content with regard to Oak Tree Farm, including any associated information connected to the Oak Tree Farm investigation.

8

Answers:

On 5 September Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service attended the site in response to a fire. A call was made to the Fire Service informing them of a controlled burn on site in a drum which was some distance from the main stack. Many people call the Fire Service each year to inform them of controlled burns and by doing so avoids unnecessary responses by fire crews. It is not normal procedure for the Fire Service to check for enforcement notices issued by partner agencies so the Fire Service did not challenge the caller, as reassurance of the size and control of the controlled burn was given. The procedure has since been altered and a geographic fence has been drawn around the farm and areas nearby on the Fire Service’s command and control system.

The incident generated a multi-agency response from an early stage. Experts from the Environment Agency and Public Health England offered advice and guidance to the other agencies including Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service, Cannock Chase District Council and Staffordshire County Council. The risks and impacts regarding the environment, air quality and public health were all considered throughout the process to tackle the fire in a way that minimised as many of the possible risks.

Unfortunately during the initial days of the incident a number of officers in the Environmental Health Department at Cannock Chase District Council were on annual leave and whilst efforts were made to brief individual officers on their return, some were not fully aware prior to receiving customer enquires. Cannock Chase District Council apologises for this error and lessons have been learnt.

A range of multi-agency meetings are taking place at operational and strategic levels to consider the ongoing containment of the incident, the investigation and application of legal remedies available to address the incident and to prevent further incidents of a similar nature. Updates will be provided when necessary and these will be in the form of press statements and Questions & Answers which are available on Cannock Chase District Council’s website.

Type of waste(Covering questions 24 to 28)

24. Why is there only one small digger on site why not 10 or even more whatever it takes to get the job done quickly also the sight should have floodlights and work carry on 24/7 like an emergency situation should be dealt with, as it would be if it were in a town or city. People would put up with a bit of noise to be rid of the toxic smoke any way we could always shut our windows as this cures everything according to the EA.

25. The fire officer said they were finding different things burning and dealing with them as required but did not specify what - could we have more information please

9

26. With the burying of the burning waste under soil does this mean the site is categorised as a landfill?

27. I called Cannock Council after nearly a week and was told there were no dangerous substances involved and the fire brigade were on site performing a controlled burn. After this I was told to call the none emergency number for Staffordshire fire Service which I did, I was called back a couple of hours later and I was told that the fire brigade were not carrying out a controlled burn but they were monitoring the controlled burn by the land owner and they could not pour thousands of gallons of water on to the fire due to a bore hole near the fire which would cause long term environmental issues...

28. When was asbestos found either in fires or in the waste stored on the site?

Answers:

Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service found most of the material on site appeared to be wood waste, ranging in consistency from sawdust to “garden mulch” type material. As the Fire Service worked to stir the material to promote faster, hotter, controlled burning it found that the apparently relatively benign wood waste had been piled on top of what appeared to be domestic skip waste including plastics, fabric and soil. As the Fire Service dug further a small number of propane gas cylinders were found and action was taken to make them safe. No hazardous chemical containers were found. During this controlled burn a telehandler was used. This was later replaced, at a cost of £600 per day, by a larger load-haul and this was added to, at a cost of a further £700 per day, with a 360 excavator. The Fire Service were mindful of the impact of noise on the people in the immediate vicinity so machinery was used over a 12 hour day. All costs were met by the Fire Service and, as it is unlikely that these costs will be recovered, the Service had to balance the cost and duration of response activities with the benefits and the impact on the locality.

The Fire Service then found asbestos in the stack on 20 September and this changed the tactics being used, with the fire being capped with soil. Smothering the waste does not lead this to be categorised as a landfill site, it remains an illegal waste site to be cleared.

As part of routine monitoring, officers from Cannock Chase District Council recorded seeing asbestos cement sheets stored on site – these were stacked away from the normal site used for fires. Officers attended the site on 13 August 2015 and issued Mr Ward with instructions regarding the proper disposal of this material and this was subsequently confirmed when a valid waste transfer note was produced. Prosecution evidence in relation to an offence in May 2014 also noted the presence of a single sheet of asbestos cement-type material in the remains of a fire. Mr Ward denied attempting to burn the material.

10

Water quality(Covering questions 29 to 34)

29. With the heavy rain last week and the argument to not put out the fire with water due to the risk of contamination, why is the effect of the rain on the fire not considered as detrimental to the environment as the use of water by the Fire Service is?

30. Who will be taking the responsibility of monitoring the impact of the fire on the environment and waterways?

31. I honestly feel that we have been lied to and more could have been done to put out the fire......It feels like trees, fish and birds are more important than our health and that of our 7 year old girl.

32. I may be wrong, but using the words long term environmental damage is a very general term and do feel we are being miss led, or at best fobbed off.

33. Could you please explain exactly what the long term environmental issues would realistically be in as much detail as you can, and if they are more important than the health of thousands of people in and around Rugeley and more to the point the health of our 7 year old daughter?

34. Request for monitoring figures for the local watercourse and local supply post 05/09/2016? And for the period from when it was first established asbestos was on site at Oak Tree Farm several years ago.

Answers:

The Environment Agency worked closely with South Staffordshire Water and Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service to minimise the risks of water pollution near this site. One of the key environmental issues has been the protection of groundwater which is used for public water supply. In the event surface and ground water quality is impacted, steps are taken to mitigate the impact and formal samples will be taken for analysis and evidence.

The application of large amounts of water by the Fire and Rescue Service could have posed a risk of polluting the groundwater. Heavy rainfall would not have posed a great risk due to relative levels still being much lower than what would have been needed to put the fire out, and much of the rainfall being evaporated. The multi-agency group responding to the fire had to balance the unpleasant short term impacts on local air quality with the risk of longer term damage to the drinking water supply. This is why controlled burn, separation and smothering techniques have primarily been used to fight this fire. This approach was continually reviewed and adapted as necessary through the daily meetings that occurred.

During this incident Environment Agency Officers at the site monitored the situation closely regarding any potential impacts to surface or ground water in the area. No formal sampling was required.

11

The Environment Agency remains in discussions with South Staffordshire Water to evaluate any ongoing risk that this site poses to the water environment and to ensure any appropriate investigation and monitoring is undertaken.

Air quality(Covering questions 35 to 56)

35. Why has it taken 16 days to get air quality monitoring equipment in place surely this should have been in place from day 1 and remained in place throughout or how can they say the air is safe to breathe as different things could be burning on different days as nobody knows the true content of the waste.

36. I have read the latest press release and I am unable to sleep as we have a 7 year old girl asleep upstairs, and whilst she is asleep she is breathing in fumes that neither you nor I are sure of what they actually are. Whether we keep our doors and windows closed or not it does not stop the fumes or smells we have been subject to over the last 2 and a half weeks.

37. I honestly feel that we have been lied to and more could have been done to put out the fire...It feels like trees, fish and birds are more important than our health and that of our 7 year old girl.

38. I may be wrong, but using the words long term environmental damage is a very general term and do feel we are being miss led, or at best fobbed off.

39. I myself have been clearing my throat constantly, and I can only put this down to the fire as I was fine a couple of weeks ago.

40. Surely the possible exposure to asbestos far out ways the environmental impact... I would take environmental issues over CANCER every time... Would you?

41. In light of the council being aware that Mr Ward had previously burnt asbestos on Oak Tree Farm why did the agencies involved determine that no air monitoring equipment was needed from the start?

42. As the fire service themselves explained at the public meeting that their air monitoring equipment did not test for asbestos, why was the air not being tested independently to support their air quality equipment as the fire progressed and it became apparent that there was more than just wood chips burning?

43. As asbestos was identified on 20th September, why has it taken nearly a week for the CCDC to publish their first air quality report?

12

44. When the Council contacted Public Health England for advice, were Public Health England made aware of the previous incident involving asbestos being found on the site?

45. Did the Public Health / Environmental Health agencies actually visit Oak Tree Farm before 12.9.16? – Or was their ‘advice’ given based upon CCDC indicating the size of the fire and probable waste burning?

46. Why did it take 11 days to call in an expert?

Questions re monitoring 05/09/2016 up to the date of capping of the fire:

47. What equipment was used? 48. What was in the smoke?49. What were the results?50. Dates of monitoring

Questions re: independent monitoring (asbestos)

51. Name of company used?52. Dates of monitoring?

Questions re monitoring after the date of capping

53. What are the exact locations of the monitoring equipment?54. Make/model of equipment used?

Comment re health impacts

55. Is there any information on increases in attendance at A & E/ GP surgeries associated with the incident?

56. Who will take responsibility for these consequences should they occur?

Answers:

The incident was anticipated to be of short duration, with Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service having one pump in attendance. However, due to its location directly over a sensitive aquifer and its close proximity to a water course the Fire Service were unable to extinguish the fire. Consequently, advice was sought on the availability of national air quality equipment from the Environment Agency and Public Health England. The incident was not considered sufficiently significant to warrant the deployment of the equipment, as air quality monitoring by the Environment Agency would only happen for national disasters/acute chemical incidents like the one at Buncefield where there were explosions at an oil depot. For all other incidents air quality monitoring is the responsibility of the local council, for this incident it was Cannock Chase District Council.

Cannock Chase District Council took advice on the nature of pollutants to be monitored and the type of monitoring equipment that would be suitable for this task. Arrangements were made to hire the equipment and have it delivered to appropriate locations identified for its

13

installation. Air quality monitoring by the District Council commenced on 22 September 2016. No local authority monitoring data is available prior to this date. The sites for monitoring included The Horns, Slitting Mill and The Pear Tree. The monitoring equipment being used was a Cassella Microdust Pro – more details can be found here: http://www.casellasolutions.com/uk/en/document-library/datasheets/english/24963-cel-712-microdust-pro-4pp-datasheet-uk_v2.pdf

It was the first occasion Cannock Chase District Council had faced an incident of this nature and magnitude and lessons have been learnt for future incidents. However, earlier monitoring would not have changed the risk assessment or any public health advice provided by Public Health England.

Officers from Environmental Health visited the site on 6 September at which time no evidence of asbestos was observed. The mix of wood waste and other domestic waste in the fire was noted. All firefighters from Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service are trained to look for signs of asbestos contamination and on 20 September the Fire Service confirmed that some material containing asbestos had been found at the scene of the fire.

Arrangements were put in place by Staffordshire County Council and Cannock Chase District Council after 20 September to secure and install equipment for asbestos related air quality monitoring. The company used for the asbestos testing was Environmental Essentials who are an approved contractor to Staffordshire County Council and provides asbestos consultancy, survey and analytical services. It is a company that is UKAS accredited and has its own UKAS Laboratory.

Asbestos is only a risk to health if asbestos fibres are released into the air and breathed in. Monitoring of the smoke for asbestos by a specialist consultant on 22, 23 and 28 September, which included air testing before the soil cap was in place and post soil cap, did not discover fibres in the smoke.

Risk from exposure to asbestos was therefore considered to be very low. Firefighters working close to the asbestos were not found to have been contaminated. Public Health England reviewed all results and provided health advice to all concerned about the risk.

Public Health England were in contact with the scientific officers on a daily basis regarding the monitoring strategy and continued to support the interpretation of the monitoring results with respect to any potential impacts on public health.

Public Health England advised that all smoke is an irritant but it was not believed that there is a cause for public concern, other than the nuisance from the smoke. Smoke can cause a temporary cough and make people’s eyes and throat sore. The general advice was that people should do all they can to stay out of the smoke. People with asthma and other respiratory conditions should carry their inhaler with them as a precaution if they are exposed to smoke.

Public Health England used its Syndromic Surveillance System to analyse the pattern of calls to the NHS 111 Helpline from 29 August 2016 (prior to the fire) until 25 September 2016 to see if there had been an increase in calls from local residents complaining of

14

symptoms of cough, difficulty breathing and eye problems. No increases in the rate of calls were detected in the neighbourhood of the fire or surrounding postcode areas. An increase in calls would have been expected if there had been significant impact on health from the smoke plume.

Cost of multi-agency response(Covering questions 57 to 61)

57. Is the cost of managing/extinguishing this fire to be recovered from the occupant?

58. In the event of a prosecution of the land owner what is the process for individuals to make a claim against him and could the council legal department help?

59. He obviously makes money from these adventures so should be made to pay for the clean-up and fire brigade.

60. In the event of him being fined and he does not pay as with previous fines why are the bailiffs or sheriffs not sent in to collect payment in full or remove goods or equipment to the value of.

61. Please clarify as to whether council tax funds have been used or will be used in the extinguishing of the fire, the subsequent clean up and air monitoring.

Answers:

Public funds, including council tax funds and business rates, have been used to deal with this incident by some of the public agencies involved. This specifically includes extinguishing/ capping the fire (Staffordshire Fire and Rescue), air quality monitoring (Cannock Chase District Council and Staffordshire County Council) and the costs of officer time. The Environment Agency and Public Health England are national bodies and are not funded by local council tax payers.

The recovery of costs incurred by all agencies is being explored as part of an investigation. Whilst options for cost recovery are being explored, it is considered unlikely that the additional costs incurred by public agencies such as Staffordshire Fire and Rescue, will ever be fully recovered. The arrangement for the payment of previous fines and site enforcement are matters which the Magistrates Courts controls rather than any of the Councils or the Environment Agency.

Where individuals wish to pursue claims for damages, they can do so through the Civil Courts. Staffordshire County Council’s Legal Department would be unable to assist in civil matters and individuals would need to seek independent legal advice from their own solicitors.

Impact on the wider environment62. Has the health of nearby farm animals been considered?

15

Yes, Animal Health has undertaken regular visits since the fire started and are monitoring the health of the animals. Air pollution levels are currently low.

63. Are any crops exposed to the smoke safe for consumption?It is believed that there are no crops in the area affected because of growing cycles. Some seed planting in the area has been suspended.

Health advice64. Could my health be affected by the smoke from the fire?

All smoke is an irritant however it is not believed that there is a cause for public concern, other than the nuisance from the smoke.

Smoke can cause a cough and make people’s eyes and throat sore. The general advice remains that people should do all they can to stay out of the smoke. People with asthma and other respiratory conditions should carry their inhaler with them as a precaution if they are exposed to smoke.

If your breathing is affected by the smoke please call your GP surgery for advice, following any instructions for out of hours services, or contact the NHS 111 service (which is free from both landlines and mobiles and open 24/7).

Regulatory and enforcement action to prevent further illegal activity and fires at the site

(Covering questions 65 to 75)

65. What steps are being taken to prevent future fires on this property?

66. Will the council continue to monitor activities at the site to ensure there are no further transgressions?

67. If the council is to continue to monitor the activity on this property, what measures will be put in place to achieve this?

68. What guarantees do the residents of Rugeley and Slitting Mill have that this farmer will not continue to collect waste and burn it?

69. Main concern that this or anything similar does not happen again. It is quite obvious this Land Owner is not a good Neighbour and shows no duty of care to others, we have experienced car boot sales, motor cross meetings with motor bikes (both on a Sunday) waste recycling and now the deliberate setting fire of waste which will no doubt have toxins and other hazardous by products spilling over the local community. (all in an area of outstanding beauty)

70. The tax man should also be advised

16

71. ‘Steps should be taken to recover all costs be it via compulsory purchase or serving a notice and putting a charge on his property.

72. Are the Police involved yet regarding criminal activity?

73. Are investigations underway to determine the source of this waste?

74. Have the Fire Brigade established a cause of the fire?

75. Why do repeatedly illegal operations such as these manage to thrive for so long to enable so much damage to occur in those local communities?

Answers:

The Fire Service has recorded the most likely cause of the fire as deliberate, having eliminated all possibilities, including self-heating (sometimes known as spontaneous combustion), or the fire having started accidently.

The Environment Agency works closely with local councils and communities to tackle illegal waste sites and illegal waste dumping. Through the Government Spending Review 2015, the Environment Agency secured an additional £23m to tackle waste crime across England. £20m of this is from the landfill communities tax fund. This will be spent across the country, targeting priority areas. In the West Midlands, the Environment Agency has used this to fund additional temporary staff to further target illegal waste operators and high risk sites of concern.

Between 01 January 2015 and 26 August 2016 the Environment Agency identified 153 illegal waste sites in the West Midlands. They have successfully closed down 127 of these sites, 26 of these were in Staffordshire. The Environment Agency continues to work closely with the landowners and operators at the remaining locations to either bring them within the required permitted regulations or to take action to close them down.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. Staffordshire County Council believes that it acted reasonably and proportionately in this case under the powers available to it in The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Environment Agency, Staffordshire County Council, Staffordshire Fire and Rescue, Staffordshire Police and Cannock Chase District Council are all working closely together and visiting the site to monitor activities to deter further transgressions.

As part of the on-going multi-agency approach, all enforcement and legal options are being considered to prevent further waste activity and fire risk at this site. The engagement of other appropriate agencies that may be of assistance in preventing the occurrence of other antisocial activities is also being explored as part of the investigation.

17

Whilst Staffordshire Police are involved in the multi-agency approach to this issue, the nature of the criminal activity falls within the remit of Staffordshire County Council and the Environment Agency. If circumstances are encountered that would warrant investigation by the Police, all relevant information will be made available to them.

Should local residents witness any waste being imported to the site, they should contact the Planning Regulation Team at Staffordshire County Council immediately so that it can be investigated. Their contact details are regulation@staffordshire.gov.uk or 0300 111 8000.