Hefty fines for illegal fires
Two parties will between them pay more than $50,000 in fines and costs for their roles in the illegal disposal of demolition materials from Kaikohe’s ‘old’ Northland College more than two years ago.
Yakka Demolition, the Auckland-based company that carted the materials from the college rebuild, and farmer Jason Robert Bill, owner of the land nearby where the material was taken, both admitted charges laid by the Northland Regional Council.
Yakka pleaded guilty to burning demolition waste and discharging contaminants to land, Bill to permitting a discharge of contaminants from open burning and permitting the discharge of contaminants to land.
District and Environment Court Judge JA Smith wrote in his sentencing notes that Bill claimed to have been approached about using his land for the disposal of untreated timber, and there was no evidence that he was aware of the actual contents of the waste.
That claim appeared to be accepted by the prosecution, although it claimed he had a duty to ensure the verbal agreement he had made was being adhered to by the demolition company.
“What is now clear is that the waste consisted of a wide range of waste from untreated wood, including plywood, medium-density fibreboard, treated timber, painted wood, chipboard, plastic, metals and coated wire,” Judge Smith said.
Tyres had also found their way into the waste, but he accepted that a “third party unknown” had placed them there, as they had not been delivered by Yakka or part of the college demolition materials.
There was no suggestion of any significant long-term environmental effects, he added, “but clearly the discharge of fumes from burning plastics, paint and the like can release toxic fumes into the environment”.
A recent report indicated there had been no long-term contamination but “there has been an impact in terms of the site becoming a HAIL (Hazardous Activities and Industries List) site, thus requiring notation in the district plan”.
Judge Smith went on to say that he was surprised at the lack of formal contracts with Bill, as the owner of the land, given that accounts appear to have been rendered in the order of $30,000 plus GST.
In pleading guilty, Bill had accepted he permitted the burning and the discharges, even if only in the sense of not undertaking appropriate diligence.
Notwithstanding that about 500 cubic metres of material, and a significant sum of money, were involved, Bill’s culpability was at the “lowest” end.
Bill was fined $11,800 for the discharge to land and $2600 for the discharge to air, with court costs of $130 on each charge.
Judge Smith instructed the court registrar to set an appropriate solicitor’s fee.
In Yakka’s case, the company had burned waste materials that would clearly have contained contaminants that would release noxious substances into the air.
Judge Smith viewed Yakka’s conduct as of “moderate seriousness, a case of wilful blindness rather than deliberate intention to breach the regional rules”.
He noted that the company had subsequently co-operated fully with the regional council, including spending more than $40,000 arranging for alternative placement of the materials at an appropriate site, and paying for testing and reporting at the site.
The company, after consideration was given to its previous good conduct, remorse and assistance to the council, was fined $24,000 for the land discharge and $12,000 for the air discharge, with court costs of $130 and a solicitor’s fee of $113 on each of the charges.
“I am satisfied that these fines represent a fair and appropriate outcome that will achieve deterrence while at the same time representing an appropriate outcome for each offender,” Judge Smith said.
He ordered that 90 per cent of the fines be paid to the regional council.
Colin Dall, the regional council’s group manager — regulatory services, said later that the case was a good reminder to land owners who allowed activities to take place on their land had a responsibility to ensure that those activities were conducted in a lawful manner.
“Land owners should also be wary of relying on verbal agreements, particularly where the activity they allow to be undertaken on their land may require resource consent,” he said.
"I am satisfied that these fines represent a fair and appropriate outcome that will achieve deterrence while at the same time representing an appropriate outcome for each offender." Judge J A Smith