Armabridge, of Torquay, South Devon, pleaded guilty to three offences under the Environmental Permitting Regulations (2010) and Environmental Protection Act (1990) including operating a regulated facility without permit and failing to comply with two enforcement notices.
It was fined £6,000 and ordered to pay over £9,640 in costs.
Torquay Magistrates' Court heard how Armabridge operates two businesses from separate sites in Torquay.
These include a top soil supply business at Kerswell Garden Centre known as 'Topsoil Torbay' and a waste transfer station/skip business at Barton Hill Way trading as 'Skip-it'.
Environment Agency (EA) officers discovered suspicious piles of sieved waste known as 'fines' at the Kerswell Garden Centre site on 06 June 2014.
Samples of the debris were found to contain hazardous materials including asbestos.
-- Advertisement --
The MD of Armabridge admitted tipping some of the screened waste, however he disputed the suggestion his company was responsible for all of the illegal waste deposited. In an interview under caution. he admitted using the Kerswell Gardens site to process waste to avoid high landfill charges.
EA officers estimated around 2,600 tonnes of hazardous waste had been deposited at the site which was only licensed to accept inert wastes.
In addition, problems were also uncovered at Armabridge's waste transfer station at Barton Hill Way earlier in 2014.
There was considered to be a risk of waste run-off entering surface water drainage systems and contaminating the surrounding environment. In addition, a large pile of mixed waste was also being stored outside the defined area close to an electrical sub-station.
After Armabridge was asked to address these problems, a follow-up inspection on 03 June 2014 found no action had been taken.
As a result, the EA issued an Enforcement Notice on 10, July 2014. However, the site remained largely unchanged during its next inspection in October 2014.
Inadequate measures had been taken to prevent contaminated water from entering surface water drainage and the large pile of waste stored outside the permitted area was still in place.
Jacob Hess for the EA, said: "In our opinion this defendant found a cheap way to dispose of waste, but in saving money the company failed to take the necessary steps to protect the environment. "Although the asbestos was mainly in a bonded form, any movement or treatment of this waste without proper controls in place may have lead to the release and spread of asbestos fibres putting the environment at further risk.
"Inadequate infrastructure and storage of waste at the waste transfer site meant that site operations posed an immediate risk to the local environment."
(LM/CD)
