Environment court fines Goulburn waste operator after EPA action

The NSW Land and Environment Court ordered Christopher James Eveston, the operations manager for Common Street Recycling Pty Ltd, to pay a $55,500 fine and the EPA's $22,660 investigation costs plus legal expenses.

Justice Rachel Pepper's October 28 decision also revealed that Goulburn Mulwaree Council paid the company an $850,000 "settlement" after the latter brought Supreme Court action against the organisation.

READ MORE:

EPA continues legal action against Goulburn Common Street waste operator

EPA imposes deadline on Goulburn waste yard

Goulburn's Common Street waste yard under scrutiny

A corporate body, comprising Common Street and Southern State Recycling and Northern Park Pty Ltd, alleged that it had suffered financially after the council "formed a view" in 2018 that the Goulburn facility's consent had expired in 2013 and was therefore "unlawful."

Justice Pepper said it was not a matter of contention that the council formed this opinion, "contrary to previous representations to Eveston."

Her judgement detailed a September, 2013 letter to Eveston from a council officer stating that a 12-year approval for the waste facility would start once an occupation certificate was granted.

An interim occupation certificate for a roofed wheel wash on the site was issued in August, 2015.

ALSO READ: Tick anti-toxin in limited supply, vets say: 'Protect your pets'

When the council advised the EPA that it believed the consent was unlawful, the latter moved in April, 2018 to revoke the landfill's licence.

The corporate body, which owned the Common Street yard, commenced Supreme Court action against the council in March, 2019 seeking damages "for losses occasioned" by the council's representations over the consent. It had expected the approval to run until 2027.

Justice Pepper said the proceedings were settled in July, 2022 in the companies' favour. However, Mr Eveston says the matter is ongoing and the companies are seeking more than $150 million in damages.

"In August, 2022, the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court proceedings subsequently agreed amongst themselves to use the settlement sum of $850,000 to pay for waste management contractors to remove and dispose of the waste at the property," Justice Pepper stated.

"Shortly thereafter, Eveston (alongside waste removal contractors) commenced removing waste from the property.

"...I accept that Eveston suffered financial difficulties due to the council's misleading conduct with respect to the expiration of the consent. This must be weighed against the fact that Eveston could have, but chose not to, seek a further time extension for compliance with (the EPA's revocation notice)."

A council statement said the organisation could not comment as the legal proceedings were ongoing and the parties had entered into a confidentiality agreement.

Mr Eveston pleaded guilty in the Land and Environment Court in 2020 to two breaches of a 2019 EPA notice revoking the environment protection licence for the facility at 12 Common Street.

The EPA alleged that he had failed to ensure that no more than 3195 tonnes remained at the property as at May 21, 2019. The Authority also claimed he did not remove all the material by a September 21, 2019 deadline.

An EPA spokesman said approximately 6860 cubic metres of waste was stockpiled at the facility at the time of the offences, which equated to about 340 eight-tonne trucks.

ALSO READ: Alcohol free zone at kids' movies splits councillor opinion

It comprised a mix of building and demolition waste, tyres, and miscellaneous objects including furniture, appliances, toys and plastics.

The site has been the subject of neighbour complaints for at least five years. The EPA has been pursuing legal action for almost four years.

The Authority started Land and Environment Court proceedings in May, 2020.

"I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Eveston's offending conduct occasioned potential environmental harm by the generation of leachate from the waste that remained on the property after May and September 2019," Justice Pepper said.

But she said that at no point between February and September, 2019 did Eveston or his lawyers request a time extension to remove the waste. This only came on February 11, 2021.

Further, he "could have and should have" taken steps to cover the stockpile and reduce leachate generation from rain. But Justice Pepper said the EPA had not established the breaches had caused "actual and likely environmental harm."

While considering Eveston's arguments that he couldn't afford to remove the waste due to his "parlous financial position" and the two court proceedings, Justice Pepper said the defendant was "at all times in control of the causes...of the offences."

In her decision, she took into account Eveston's guilty pleas, his character and the need for deterrence. She said the offences were of "low objective seriousness."

ALSO READ: Convoy for Kids sets sights on smashing world record

"Eveston has now committed three environmental offences," the judgment stated.

He remains in the waste industry.

The court ordered Mr Eveston to publish a half-page notice in the Goulburn Post within 28 days, advising of the court judgement.

Mr Eveston said he was consulting his barrister on whether to appeal the decision.

"I am disappointed at the (court's) decision to fine me because the council caused the problem that led to the (EPA) licence being revoked, and then took about four years to pay any money towards the clean-up costs," he said.

He told The Post that 75 per cent of waste had been removed from the site and it would all be gone by December if "there was no more heavy rain."

NSW EPA executive director of regulatory operations, Carmen Dwyer said the EPA requires NSW licence holders to operate to the required standards.

"Leachate generated from stockpiled waste can degrade local ecosystems, contaminate waterways and risk the community's health," Ms Dwyer said.

"Over the last few years, we know many in the Goulburn community have been concerned about the risks this site presents to the local environment.

"I want to thank the...community for their assistance. Our officers will continue to monitor the site until we are satisfied the risk is removed."

A spokesman said the EPA did not believe site remediation would be required once the material was gone.

Do you have something to say about this issue? Send a letter to the editor. Click here for the Goulburn Post

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can access our trusted content: