Week since staff last seen at Waste4Fuel site - now considered abandoned

The Waste4Fuel site in St Paul's Cray is now considered abandoned

The Waste4Fuel site in St Paul's Cray is now considered abandoned

First published in News This Is Local London: Photograph of the Author by , deputy news editor

A week has passed since Waste4Fuel staff were last at the St Paul's Cray site, and it is now considered abandoned.

The Environment Agency says a fence will now be installed around it, securing the site and reducing the potential impact for trespass, arson or other anti-social behaviour.

It will also allow access for the Environment Agency and the London fire and emergency planning authority.

The fencing was one of the conditions of the enforcement notice issued to the site on July 8, but was not complied with. 

It is the responsibility of the site operator, and then the landowner, to clear up the site, however the Environment Agency will be working with Waste4Fuel, Bromley Council and other partners to consider how to reduce the amount of waste left on the site to a safe level.

Chris Hazelton, environment manager at the Environment Agency, said: "We understand the frustration of local residents and we’re committed to finding a solution that will bring to an end the upset and nuisance for the community."

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:52pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Love London Life says...

Blah Blah Blah same old same old.

Just get a company in and clear all the rubbish, then sell the land on to property developers or such like and hey presto you have the money back which it cost to clear the site.

If the Landowner or Site operator don't want it claim it....
Blah Blah Blah same old same old. Just get a company in and clear all the rubbish, then sell the land on to property developers or such like and hey presto you have the money back which it cost to clear the site. If the Landowner or Site operator don't want it claim it.... Love London Life
  • Score: 15

12:56pm Fri 1 Aug 14

Slonik says...

Not to worry, I dare say the ever generous Mr Tax Payer will foot the bill...
Not to worry, I dare say the ever generous Mr Tax Payer will foot the bill... Slonik
  • Score: 18

1:16pm Fri 1 Aug 14

reasonable75 says...

Love London Life wrote:
Blah Blah Blah same old same old.

Just get a company in and clear all the rubbish, then sell the land on to property developers or such like and hey presto you have the money back which it cost to clear the site.

If the Landowner or Site operator don't want it claim it....
Just put a match to it - wait, that's what they were doing
[quote][p][bold]Love London Life[/bold] wrote: Blah Blah Blah same old same old. Just get a company in and clear all the rubbish, then sell the land on to property developers or such like and hey presto you have the money back which it cost to clear the site. If the Landowner or Site operator don't want it claim it....[/p][/quote]Just put a match to it - wait, that's what they were doing reasonable75
  • Score: 18

2:35pm Fri 1 Aug 14

concerned.erith says...

LOL reasonable75! Hopefully the people who live nearby can get this blight out of their lives.
LOL reasonable75! Hopefully the people who live nearby can get this blight out of their lives. concerned.erith
  • Score: 8

5:21pm Fri 1 Aug 14

mouthalmighty says...

concerned.erith wrote:
LOL reasonable75! Hopefully the people who live nearby can get this blight out of their lives.
Hear hear. They have suffered far too much. Someone should pay for this inconvenience , but they'll find a way to get out of it.
[quote][p][bold]concerned.erith[/bold] wrote: LOL reasonable75! Hopefully the people who live nearby can get this blight out of their lives.[/p][/quote]Hear hear. They have suffered far too much. Someone should pay for this inconvenience , but they'll find a way to get out of it. mouthalmighty
  • Score: 8

8:51pm Fri 1 Aug 14

swanleyperson says...

Ah sweet blud! Im ganna go live there! Squatters rights!
Ah sweet blud! Im ganna go live there! Squatters rights! swanleyperson
  • Score: -4

10:39am Sat 2 Aug 14

The Fozziest of Bears says...

No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah.

They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it.

Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha).
No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah. They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it. Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha). The Fozziest of Bears
  • Score: 8

6:57pm Sat 2 Aug 14

rojo174 says...

Let the lookey likeys live there, they won't even notice the rubbish, they are so used to it
Let the lookey likeys live there, they won't even notice the rubbish, they are so used to it rojo174
  • Score: 3

7:39am Sun 3 Aug 14

flea_in_ear says...

The Fozziest of Bears wrote:
No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah.

They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it.

Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha).
I believe that the council had no power in this. The Environment Agency issues the licences for such sites. You may remember David McBride, former LibDem councillor, being heavily involved in this, and meeting with government ministers, as did various other councillors. Jo Johnson made regular unannounced visits to the site. Had the council taken action there was the possibility that not only the taxpayer would have picked up the tab for clearing up, but also damages from Waste4Fuel for illegal action, and from the creditors (I believe the best part of £700,000 was owing as at January 2014 - whatever the condition of the site, it was NOT in the creditors' interests for Waste4Fuel's activities to be restricted, nor for Waste4Fuel to go into liquidatio)). So we would have been landed with all the legal fees as well.

If I am correct, and it was/is the Environment Agency's remit, they should have acted sooner. In addition, assuming there was a written tenancy agreement in place, the landlord should have immediately refused to accept rent as soon as it was clear that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement (I assume that agreement would have included what could or could not be stored on the site). Once rent is accepted with knowledge of a breach, it is generally assumed that the breach is waived, and the landlord is then in a much more difficult situation. One reason why it is worth paying for a solicitor to draw up such agreement, and to take urgent advice if things go wrong.
[quote][p][bold]The Fozziest of Bears[/bold] wrote: No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah. They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it. Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha).[/p][/quote]I believe that the council had no power in this. The Environment Agency issues the licences for such sites. You may remember David McBride, former LibDem councillor, being heavily involved in this, and meeting with government ministers, as did various other councillors. Jo Johnson made regular unannounced visits to the site. Had the council taken action there was the possibility that not only the taxpayer would have picked up the tab for clearing up, but also damages from Waste4Fuel for illegal action, and from the creditors (I believe the best part of £700,000 was owing as at January 2014 - whatever the condition of the site, it was NOT in the creditors' interests for Waste4Fuel's activities to be restricted, nor for Waste4Fuel to go into liquidatio)). So we would have been landed with all the legal fees as well. If I am correct, and it was/is the Environment Agency's remit, they should have acted sooner. In addition, assuming there was a written tenancy agreement in place, the landlord should have immediately refused to accept rent as soon as it was clear that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement (I assume that agreement would have included what could or could not be stored on the site). Once rent is accepted with knowledge of a breach, it is generally assumed that the breach is waived, and the landlord is then in a much more difficult situation. One reason why it is worth paying for a solicitor to draw up such agreement, and to take urgent advice if things go wrong. flea_in_ear
  • Score: 7

12:36pm Sun 3 Aug 14

The Fozziest of Bears says...

The Council have a range of "cease and desist" powers which have been explained on here many times. If public safety is at risk (which it clearly was), then Bromley can have no fear of repercussions.

The taxpayer has already picked up the tab for endless court hearings, fire brigade call-outs, water testing, and now we will pay to clear the site - everybody could see this coming EXCEPT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAID TO DEAL WITH IT !

As for the Environment Agency - just ask the people who are still cleaning up after the Spring floods, if the EA are reliable or not.

Regardless of the EA, Bromley should have gone straight for an injunction to stop the site operating, and ordered W4F to clear the site - or clear it for them and pick up the tab. We are going to pick up the tab anyway, so what's the difference - other than several months/years of misery that the locals have endured ever since.

The Local Authority exists for the benefit of the local people that elect the representatives and pay the wages via Council Tax. If this had been in Kensington - do you think it would have taken several years to resolve?
The Council have a range of "cease and desist" powers which have been explained on here many times. If public safety is at risk (which it clearly was), then Bromley can have no fear of repercussions. The taxpayer has already picked up the tab for endless court hearings, fire brigade call-outs, water testing, and now we will pay to clear the site - everybody could see this coming EXCEPT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAID TO DEAL WITH IT ! As for the Environment Agency - just ask the people who are still cleaning up after the Spring floods, if the EA are reliable or not. Regardless of the EA, Bromley should have gone straight for an injunction to stop the site operating, and ordered W4F to clear the site - or clear it for them and pick up the tab. We are going to pick up the tab anyway, so what's the difference - other than several months/years of misery that the locals have endured ever since. The Local Authority exists for the benefit of the local people that elect the representatives and pay the wages via Council Tax. If this had been in Kensington - do you think it would have taken several years to resolve? The Fozziest of Bears
  • Score: 3

12:43pm Sun 3 Aug 14

madras says...

Love London Life wrote:
Blah Blah Blah same old same old.

Just get a company in and clear all the rubbish, then sell the land on to property developers or such like and hey presto you have the money back which it cost to clear the site.

If the Landowner or Site operator don't want it claim it....
Does seem that a compulsory order to purchase the land less the cost of cleaning it up and then as you say sell it on for development would be the best way to resolve it

That, or set up a company that can turn waste into fuel and profit from it ;-)
[quote][p][bold]Love London Life[/bold] wrote: Blah Blah Blah same old same old. Just get a company in and clear all the rubbish, then sell the land on to property developers or such like and hey presto you have the money back which it cost to clear the site. If the Landowner or Site operator don't want it claim it....[/p][/quote]Does seem that a compulsory order to purchase the land less the cost of cleaning it up and then as you say sell it on for development would be the best way to resolve it That, or set up a company that can turn waste into fuel and profit from it ;-) madras
  • Score: 2

6:24am Mon 4 Aug 14

molsey says...

flea_in_ear wrote:
The Fozziest of Bears wrote:
No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah.

They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it.

Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha).
I believe that the council had no power in this. The Environment Agency issues the licences for such sites. You may remember David McBride, former LibDem councillor, being heavily involved in this, and meeting with government ministers, as did various other councillors. Jo Johnson made regular unannounced visits to the site. Had the council taken action there was the possibility that not only the taxpayer would have picked up the tab for clearing up, but also damages from Waste4Fuel for illegal action, and from the creditors (I believe the best part of £700,000 was owing as at January 2014 - whatever the condition of the site, it was NOT in the creditors' interests for Waste4Fuel's activities to be restricted, nor for Waste4Fuel to go into liquidatio)). So we would have been landed with all the legal fees as well.

If I am correct, and it was/is the Environment Agency's remit, they should have acted sooner. In addition, assuming there was a written tenancy agreement in place, the landlord should have immediately refused to accept rent as soon as it was clear that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement (I assume that agreement would have included what could or could not be stored on the site). Once rent is accepted with knowledge of a breach, it is generally assumed that the breach is waived, and the landlord is then in a much more difficult situation. One reason why it is worth paying for a solicitor to draw up such agreement, and to take urgent advice if things go wrong.
Just because the staff have not turned up the problem has not ceased, the owners still own the land and court orders would have to be sought to enter it (in the absence of a Council Enforcement Notice). The alternative is for Bromley council to clear the site and then go for the owner for the cost.
[quote][p][bold]flea_in_ear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Fozziest of Bears[/bold] wrote: No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah. They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it. Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha).[/p][/quote]I believe that the council had no power in this. The Environment Agency issues the licences for such sites. You may remember David McBride, former LibDem councillor, being heavily involved in this, and meeting with government ministers, as did various other councillors. Jo Johnson made regular unannounced visits to the site. Had the council taken action there was the possibility that not only the taxpayer would have picked up the tab for clearing up, but also damages from Waste4Fuel for illegal action, and from the creditors (I believe the best part of £700,000 was owing as at January 2014 - whatever the condition of the site, it was NOT in the creditors' interests for Waste4Fuel's activities to be restricted, nor for Waste4Fuel to go into liquidatio)). So we would have been landed with all the legal fees as well. If I am correct, and it was/is the Environment Agency's remit, they should have acted sooner. In addition, assuming there was a written tenancy agreement in place, the landlord should have immediately refused to accept rent as soon as it was clear that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement (I assume that agreement would have included what could or could not be stored on the site). Once rent is accepted with knowledge of a breach, it is generally assumed that the breach is waived, and the landlord is then in a much more difficult situation. One reason why it is worth paying for a solicitor to draw up such agreement, and to take urgent advice if things go wrong.[/p][/quote]Just because the staff have not turned up the problem has not ceased, the owners still own the land and court orders would have to be sought to enter it (in the absence of a Council Enforcement Notice). The alternative is for Bromley council to clear the site and then go for the owner for the cost. molsey
  • Score: 1

10:12am Mon 4 Aug 14

flea_in_ear says...

molsey wrote:
flea_in_ear wrote:
The Fozziest of Bears wrote:
No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah.

They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it.

Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha).
I believe that the council had no power in this. The Environment Agency issues the licences for such sites. You may remember David McBride, former LibDem councillor, being heavily involved in this, and meeting with government ministers, as did various other councillors. Jo Johnson made regular unannounced visits to the site. Had the council taken action there was the possibility that not only the taxpayer would have picked up the tab for clearing up, but also damages from Waste4Fuel for illegal action, and from the creditors (I believe the best part of £700,000 was owing as at January 2014 - whatever the condition of the site, it was NOT in the creditors' interests for Waste4Fuel's activities to be restricted, nor for Waste4Fuel to go into liquidatio)). So we would have been landed with all the legal fees as well.

If I am correct, and it was/is the Environment Agency's remit, they should have acted sooner. In addition, assuming there was a written tenancy agreement in place, the landlord should have immediately refused to accept rent as soon as it was clear that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement (I assume that agreement would have included what could or could not be stored on the site). Once rent is accepted with knowledge of a breach, it is generally assumed that the breach is waived, and the landlord is then in a much more difficult situation. One reason why it is worth paying for a solicitor to draw up such agreement, and to take urgent advice if things go wrong.
Just because the staff have not turned up the problem has not ceased, the owners still own the land and court orders would have to be sought to enter it (in the absence of a Council Enforcement Notice). The alternative is for Bromley council to clear the site and then go for the owner for the cost.
Er - I don't think I suggested that the problem had gone away. The owner of the land does or did not run Waste4Fuel. The condition of his land now may become his responsibility. However I doubt that many individuals would be in a position financially to now clear the site, even if the land was to developed afterwards.
[quote][p][bold]molsey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flea_in_ear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Fozziest of Bears[/bold] wrote: No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah. They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it. Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha).[/p][/quote]I believe that the council had no power in this. The Environment Agency issues the licences for such sites. You may remember David McBride, former LibDem councillor, being heavily involved in this, and meeting with government ministers, as did various other councillors. Jo Johnson made regular unannounced visits to the site. Had the council taken action there was the possibility that not only the taxpayer would have picked up the tab for clearing up, but also damages from Waste4Fuel for illegal action, and from the creditors (I believe the best part of £700,000 was owing as at January 2014 - whatever the condition of the site, it was NOT in the creditors' interests for Waste4Fuel's activities to be restricted, nor for Waste4Fuel to go into liquidatio)). So we would have been landed with all the legal fees as well. If I am correct, and it was/is the Environment Agency's remit, they should have acted sooner. In addition, assuming there was a written tenancy agreement in place, the landlord should have immediately refused to accept rent as soon as it was clear that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement (I assume that agreement would have included what could or could not be stored on the site). Once rent is accepted with knowledge of a breach, it is generally assumed that the breach is waived, and the landlord is then in a much more difficult situation. One reason why it is worth paying for a solicitor to draw up such agreement, and to take urgent advice if things go wrong.[/p][/quote]Just because the staff have not turned up the problem has not ceased, the owners still own the land and court orders would have to be sought to enter it (in the absence of a Council Enforcement Notice). The alternative is for Bromley council to clear the site and then go for the owner for the cost.[/p][/quote]Er - I don't think I suggested that the problem had gone away. The owner of the land does or did not run Waste4Fuel. The condition of his land now may become his responsibility. However I doubt that many individuals would be in a position financially to now clear the site, even if the land was to developed afterwards. flea_in_ear
  • Score: 1

10:15am Mon 4 Aug 14

flea_in_ear says...

The Fozziest of Bears wrote:
The Council have a range of "cease and desist" powers which have been explained on here many times. If public safety is at risk (which it clearly was), then Bromley can have no fear of repercussions.

The taxpayer has already picked up the tab for endless court hearings, fire brigade call-outs, water testing, and now we will pay to clear the site - everybody could see this coming EXCEPT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAID TO DEAL WITH IT !

As for the Environment Agency - just ask the people who are still cleaning up after the Spring floods, if the EA are reliable or not.

Regardless of the EA, Bromley should have gone straight for an injunction to stop the site operating, and ordered W4F to clear the site - or clear it for them and pick up the tab. We are going to pick up the tab anyway, so what's the difference - other than several months/years of misery that the locals have endured ever since.

The Local Authority exists for the benefit of the local people that elect the representatives and pay the wages via Council Tax. If this had been in Kensington - do you think it would have taken several years to resolve?
I would point out that the last hearing surprising did not find any of the Waste4Fuel directors in contempt of court. I cannot quite see why.

Injunction proceedings are expensive, and funds have to be paid into court to cover damages which the other party may suffer should the party taking out the injunction not win their case.

Bromley Council could have applied for injunctive relief, and lost a considerable amount of taxpayers' money in doing so.

In that respect I am still bemused by the Judge's last ruling. And why I am sceptical that any application for relief through the courts might not have been granted.
[quote][p][bold]The Fozziest of Bears[/bold] wrote: The Council have a range of "cease and desist" powers which have been explained on here many times. If public safety is at risk (which it clearly was), then Bromley can have no fear of repercussions. The taxpayer has already picked up the tab for endless court hearings, fire brigade call-outs, water testing, and now we will pay to clear the site - everybody could see this coming EXCEPT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAID TO DEAL WITH IT ! As for the Environment Agency - just ask the people who are still cleaning up after the Spring floods, if the EA are reliable or not. Regardless of the EA, Bromley should have gone straight for an injunction to stop the site operating, and ordered W4F to clear the site - or clear it for them and pick up the tab. We are going to pick up the tab anyway, so what's the difference - other than several months/years of misery that the locals have endured ever since. The Local Authority exists for the benefit of the local people that elect the representatives and pay the wages via Council Tax. If this had been in Kensington - do you think it would have taken several years to resolve?[/p][/quote]I would point out that the last hearing surprising did not find any of the Waste4Fuel directors in contempt of court. I cannot quite see why. Injunction proceedings are expensive, and funds have to be paid into court to cover damages which the other party may suffer should the party taking out the injunction not win their case. Bromley Council could have applied for injunctive relief, and lost a considerable amount of taxpayers' money in doing so. In that respect I am still bemused by the Judge's last ruling. And why I am sceptical that any application for relief through the courts might not have been granted. flea_in_ear
  • Score: 1

11:30am Mon 4 Aug 14

joncook says...

Waste4Fuel have made an absolute laughing stock of Bromley Council & The Environment Agency. They all have a lot of questions to answer for the poor residents who's lives have been affected by Waste4Fuels complete disregard for anyone or anything other than lining their own pockets.
This is a perfect example of too much bureaucracy damaging life for law abiding citizens whilst those who don't care about communities and people lives are able to abuse the system to their own gains.
Waste4Fuel have made an absolute laughing stock of Bromley Council & The Environment Agency. They all have a lot of questions to answer for the poor residents who's lives have been affected by Waste4Fuels complete disregard for anyone or anything other than lining their own pockets. This is a perfect example of too much bureaucracy damaging life for law abiding citizens whilst those who don't care about communities and people lives are able to abuse the system to their own gains. joncook
  • Score: 8

6:51am Tue 5 Aug 14

molsey says...

flea_in_ear wrote:
molsey wrote:
flea_in_ear wrote:
The Fozziest of Bears wrote:
No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah.

They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it.

Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha).
I believe that the council had no power in this. The Environment Agency issues the licences for such sites. You may remember David McBride, former LibDem councillor, being heavily involved in this, and meeting with government ministers, as did various other councillors. Jo Johnson made regular unannounced visits to the site. Had the council taken action there was the possibility that not only the taxpayer would have picked up the tab for clearing up, but also damages from Waste4Fuel for illegal action, and from the creditors (I believe the best part of £700,000 was owing as at January 2014 - whatever the condition of the site, it was NOT in the creditors' interests for Waste4Fuel's activities to be restricted, nor for Waste4Fuel to go into liquidatio)). So we would have been landed with all the legal fees as well.

If I am correct, and it was/is the Environment Agency's remit, they should have acted sooner. In addition, assuming there was a written tenancy agreement in place, the landlord should have immediately refused to accept rent as soon as it was clear that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement (I assume that agreement would have included what could or could not be stored on the site). Once rent is accepted with knowledge of a breach, it is generally assumed that the breach is waived, and the landlord is then in a much more difficult situation. One reason why it is worth paying for a solicitor to draw up such agreement, and to take urgent advice if things go wrong.
Just because the staff have not turned up the problem has not ceased, the owners still own the land and court orders would have to be sought to enter it (in the absence of a Council Enforcement Notice). The alternative is for Bromley council to clear the site and then go for the owner for the cost.
Er - I don't think I suggested that the problem had gone away. The owner of the land does or did not run Waste4Fuel. The condition of his land now may become his responsibility. However I doubt that many individuals would be in a position financially to now clear the site, even if the land was to developed afterwards.
No, but you praised the closing of it - same thing? If nothing happens on site and the waste pile just remains, at the same time being in breach of the EA site licence and the EA does nothing we can assume the EA has given up and washed it's hand of it. Bromley Council is then obliged to step in. This could be via a Discontinuance Notice (expensive overall) or an Enforcement Notice (more practicable). Issue EN to clear - owner ignores - Council Clear - submit bill to owner at same time placing charge on land - owner still ignores - council seize land via charge - council sell land (condition purchaser clears site) and keep proceeds. I predict there would be speculative purchasers queueing up.
[quote][p][bold]flea_in_ear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]molsey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flea_in_ear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Fozziest of Bears[/bold] wrote: No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah. They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it. Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha).[/p][/quote]I believe that the council had no power in this. The Environment Agency issues the licences for such sites. You may remember David McBride, former LibDem councillor, being heavily involved in this, and meeting with government ministers, as did various other councillors. Jo Johnson made regular unannounced visits to the site. Had the council taken action there was the possibility that not only the taxpayer would have picked up the tab for clearing up, but also damages from Waste4Fuel for illegal action, and from the creditors (I believe the best part of £700,000 was owing as at January 2014 - whatever the condition of the site, it was NOT in the creditors' interests for Waste4Fuel's activities to be restricted, nor for Waste4Fuel to go into liquidatio)). So we would have been landed with all the legal fees as well. If I am correct, and it was/is the Environment Agency's remit, they should have acted sooner. In addition, assuming there was a written tenancy agreement in place, the landlord should have immediately refused to accept rent as soon as it was clear that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement (I assume that agreement would have included what could or could not be stored on the site). Once rent is accepted with knowledge of a breach, it is generally assumed that the breach is waived, and the landlord is then in a much more difficult situation. One reason why it is worth paying for a solicitor to draw up such agreement, and to take urgent advice if things go wrong.[/p][/quote]Just because the staff have not turned up the problem has not ceased, the owners still own the land and court orders would have to be sought to enter it (in the absence of a Council Enforcement Notice). The alternative is for Bromley council to clear the site and then go for the owner for the cost.[/p][/quote]Er - I don't think I suggested that the problem had gone away. The owner of the land does or did not run Waste4Fuel. The condition of his land now may become his responsibility. However I doubt that many individuals would be in a position financially to now clear the site, even if the land was to developed afterwards.[/p][/quote]No, but you praised the closing of it - same thing? If nothing happens on site and the waste pile just remains, at the same time being in breach of the EA site licence and the EA does nothing we can assume the EA has given up and washed it's hand of it. Bromley Council is then obliged to step in. This could be via a Discontinuance Notice (expensive overall) or an Enforcement Notice (more practicable). Issue EN to clear - owner ignores - Council Clear - submit bill to owner at same time placing charge on land - owner still ignores - council seize land via charge - council sell land (condition purchaser clears site) and keep proceeds. I predict there would be speculative purchasers queueing up. molsey
  • Score: 2

10:07am Tue 5 Aug 14

flea_in_ear says...

molsey wrote:
flea_in_ear wrote:
molsey wrote:
flea_in_ear wrote:
The Fozziest of Bears wrote:
No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah.

They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it.

Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha).
I believe that the council had no power in this. The Environment Agency issues the licences for such sites. You may remember David McBride, former LibDem councillor, being heavily involved in this, and meeting with government ministers, as did various other councillors. Jo Johnson made regular unannounced visits to the site. Had the council taken action there was the possibility that not only the taxpayer would have picked up the tab for clearing up, but also damages from Waste4Fuel for illegal action, and from the creditors (I believe the best part of £700,000 was owing as at January 2014 - whatever the condition of the site, it was NOT in the creditors' interests for Waste4Fuel's activities to be restricted, nor for Waste4Fuel to go into liquidatio)). So we would have been landed with all the legal fees as well.

If I am correct, and it was/is the Environment Agency's remit, they should have acted sooner. In addition, assuming there was a written tenancy agreement in place, the landlord should have immediately refused to accept rent as soon as it was clear that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement (I assume that agreement would have included what could or could not be stored on the site). Once rent is accepted with knowledge of a breach, it is generally assumed that the breach is waived, and the landlord is then in a much more difficult situation. One reason why it is worth paying for a solicitor to draw up such agreement, and to take urgent advice if things go wrong.
Just because the staff have not turned up the problem has not ceased, the owners still own the land and court orders would have to be sought to enter it (in the absence of a Council Enforcement Notice). The alternative is for Bromley council to clear the site and then go for the owner for the cost.
Er - I don't think I suggested that the problem had gone away. The owner of the land does or did not run Waste4Fuel. The condition of his land now may become his responsibility. However I doubt that many individuals would be in a position financially to now clear the site, even if the land was to developed afterwards.
No, but you praised the closing of it - same thing? If nothing happens on site and the waste pile just remains, at the same time being in breach of the EA site licence and the EA does nothing we can assume the EA has given up and washed it's hand of it. Bromley Council is then obliged to step in. This could be via a Discontinuance Notice (expensive overall) or an Enforcement Notice (more practicable). Issue EN to clear - owner ignores - Council Clear - submit bill to owner at same time placing charge on land - owner still ignores - council seize land via charge - council sell land (condition purchaser clears site) and keep proceeds. I predict there would be speculative purchasers queueing up.
I doubt very much that the landowner's assets will cover the cost of clearing the site. So your charge will cost more to obtain than it will achieve.

Yes, I am glad the site is closed. I do not believe that the people operating the site ever had any intention of correcting the issues. I have always believed that taxpayers would pick up the tab. Whichever government department did the clearing up, it is still done from taxpayers' money.

I note that the company still exists on Companies House website with a Voluntary Arrangement. I assume from this that they have literally disappeared without even bothering to wind up.
[quote][p][bold]molsey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flea_in_ear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]molsey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flea_in_ear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Fozziest of Bears[/bold] wrote: No wait for the deafening babble from the Council and local elected representatives telling us how much wotk they put in to getting it closed, and what a nuisance it was etc etc blah blah. They did nothing except sit by and watch as tax payers money was wasted on legal fees, while W4F has earned money from waste collection companies and done a bunk with it. Poor show all round, except for whichever company gets to do the clean-up. My guess would be Veolia (ha ha ha).[/p][/quote]I believe that the council had no power in this. The Environment Agency issues the licences for such sites. You may remember David McBride, former LibDem councillor, being heavily involved in this, and meeting with government ministers, as did various other councillors. Jo Johnson made regular unannounced visits to the site. Had the council taken action there was the possibility that not only the taxpayer would have picked up the tab for clearing up, but also damages from Waste4Fuel for illegal action, and from the creditors (I believe the best part of £700,000 was owing as at January 2014 - whatever the condition of the site, it was NOT in the creditors' interests for Waste4Fuel's activities to be restricted, nor for Waste4Fuel to go into liquidatio)). So we would have been landed with all the legal fees as well. If I am correct, and it was/is the Environment Agency's remit, they should have acted sooner. In addition, assuming there was a written tenancy agreement in place, the landlord should have immediately refused to accept rent as soon as it was clear that there was a breach of the tenancy agreement (I assume that agreement would have included what could or could not be stored on the site). Once rent is accepted with knowledge of a breach, it is generally assumed that the breach is waived, and the landlord is then in a much more difficult situation. One reason why it is worth paying for a solicitor to draw up such agreement, and to take urgent advice if things go wrong.[/p][/quote]Just because the staff have not turned up the problem has not ceased, the owners still own the land and court orders would have to be sought to enter it (in the absence of a Council Enforcement Notice). The alternative is for Bromley council to clear the site and then go for the owner for the cost.[/p][/quote]Er - I don't think I suggested that the problem had gone away. The owner of the land does or did not run Waste4Fuel. The condition of his land now may become his responsibility. However I doubt that many individuals would be in a position financially to now clear the site, even if the land was to developed afterwards.[/p][/quote]No, but you praised the closing of it - same thing? If nothing happens on site and the waste pile just remains, at the same time being in breach of the EA site licence and the EA does nothing we can assume the EA has given up and washed it's hand of it. Bromley Council is then obliged to step in. This could be via a Discontinuance Notice (expensive overall) or an Enforcement Notice (more practicable). Issue EN to clear - owner ignores - Council Clear - submit bill to owner at same time placing charge on land - owner still ignores - council seize land via charge - council sell land (condition purchaser clears site) and keep proceeds. I predict there would be speculative purchasers queueing up.[/p][/quote]I doubt very much that the landowner's assets will cover the cost of clearing the site. So your charge will cost more to obtain than it will achieve. Yes, I am glad the site is closed. I do not believe that the people operating the site ever had any intention of correcting the issues. I have always believed that taxpayers would pick up the tab. Whichever government department did the clearing up, it is still done from taxpayers' money. I note that the company still exists on Companies House website with a Voluntary Arrangement. I assume from this that they have literally disappeared without even bothering to wind up. flea_in_ear
  • Score: 1

10:09am Tue 5 Aug 14

flea_in_ear says...

ps to Molsey - you do know that the landowner does not apparently operate Waste4Fuel, don't you?

As for speculative developers queuing up, Cornwall Drive exits onto an extremely busy main road. Planning permission for additional properties might not be granted.
ps to Molsey - you do know that the landowner does not apparently operate Waste4Fuel, don't you? As for speculative developers queuing up, Cornwall Drive exits onto an extremely busy main road. Planning permission for additional properties might not be granted. flea_in_ear
  • Score: 1

4:05pm Tue 5 Aug 14

molsey says...

flea_in_ear wrote:
ps to Molsey - you do know that the landowner does not apparently operate Waste4Fuel, don't you?

As for speculative developers queuing up, Cornwall Drive exits onto an extremely busy main road. Planning permission for additional properties might not be granted.
If the operator has done a bunk or cannot be found responsibility falls on the land owner/freeholder.

I did not say speculative developers queuing up but 'Speculative Purchasers', there is a world of difference.
[quote][p][bold]flea_in_ear[/bold] wrote: ps to Molsey - you do know that the landowner does not apparently operate Waste4Fuel, don't you? As for speculative developers queuing up, Cornwall Drive exits onto an extremely busy main road. Planning permission for additional properties might not be granted.[/p][/quote]If the operator has done a bunk or cannot be found responsibility falls on the land owner/freeholder. I did not say speculative developers queuing up but 'Speculative Purchasers', there is a world of difference. molsey
  • Score: 2

11:26am Wed 6 Aug 14

flea_in_ear says...

molsey wrote:
flea_in_ear wrote:
ps to Molsey - you do know that the landowner does not apparently operate Waste4Fuel, don't you?

As for speculative developers queuing up, Cornwall Drive exits onto an extremely busy main road. Planning permission for additional properties might not be granted.
If the operator has done a bunk or cannot be found responsibility falls on the land owner/freeholder.

I did not say speculative developers queuing up but 'Speculative Purchasers', there is a world of difference.
Regardless of where responsibility falls, if it is estimated that clearing the site alone may cost £2million+ - what are you going to do if they do not have that sort of money? I understood the landowner has carers in any event. So if all of their money is removed, the taxpayers will end up paying for the carers.

Pursuing the landowner in this instance is unfortunately going to be a further waste of taxpayers' money, unless they have a vast sum secreted away.

What will a speculative purchaser wish to do with the site? How much do you believe they would pay for it?
[quote][p][bold]molsey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]flea_in_ear[/bold] wrote: ps to Molsey - you do know that the landowner does not apparently operate Waste4Fuel, don't you? As for speculative developers queuing up, Cornwall Drive exits onto an extremely busy main road. Planning permission for additional properties might not be granted.[/p][/quote]If the operator has done a bunk or cannot be found responsibility falls on the land owner/freeholder. I did not say speculative developers queuing up but 'Speculative Purchasers', there is a world of difference.[/p][/quote]Regardless of where responsibility falls, if it is estimated that clearing the site alone may cost £2million+ - what are you going to do if they do not have that sort of money? I understood the landowner has carers in any event. So if all of their money is removed, the taxpayers will end up paying for the carers. Pursuing the landowner in this instance is unfortunately going to be a further waste of taxpayers' money, unless they have a vast sum secreted away. What will a speculative purchaser wish to do with the site? How much do you believe they would pay for it? flea_in_ear
  • Score: 1

11:18am Thu 7 Aug 14

Marty1979 says...

I see in the latest NS article that work has begun on reducing the heap - obviously funded by tax payers
I see in the latest NS article that work has begun on reducing the heap - obviously funded by tax payers Marty1979
  • Score: 2

9:31pm Sun 10 Aug 14

nanny wizzard says...

Every resident surrounding this site has spent the last 2 yrs chasing e-mailing,protesting they collected in 2 days 1,600 signatures and no one was interested,slightly more interested when the 2 Conservative candidates were replaced by 2 UKIP which was a protest at the shabby way the EA and the Council had treated them.The biggest fear now is that some other Company will seize the opportunity to make pots of money walk away and get off scot free and that the hell for everyone will continue,where are all the parents of the 3 Schools surrounding site noticeably missing at all protests if that were my child it would not attend these Schools for fear of what long term effects this could be having on them everyone should be doing everything it takes to get this site removed and not stop till it happens.
Every resident surrounding this site has spent the last 2 yrs chasing e-mailing,protesting they collected in 2 days 1,600 signatures and no one was interested,slightly more interested when the 2 Conservative candidates were replaced by 2 UKIP which was a protest at the shabby way the EA and the Council had treated them.The biggest fear now is that some other Company will seize the opportunity to make pots of money walk away and get off scot free and that the hell for everyone will continue,where are all the parents of the 3 Schools surrounding site noticeably missing at all protests if that were my child it would not attend these Schools for fear of what long term effects this could be having on them everyone should be doing everything it takes to get this site removed and not stop till it happens. nanny wizzard
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree