$1000 in fines for dumping

Press, 17 December 1980, Page 4

$1000 in fines for dumping

A Christchurch company director was fined a total of $lOOO in the District Court yesterday on 10 charges relating to his dumping prohibited materials at a dump in Halswell Junction Road. The defendant, Allan

Michael Rhodes, was fined SIC 9 on each of 10 charges of permitting the dumping of material other than nonnoxious hardfill on the land, thereby contravening a condition of a specified departure granted by the Paparua County Council. A solicitor’s fee of $lOO was imposed, and court costs of $lO on each charge. The fines, were imposed by Judge McAloon, who convicted the defendant of these offences-, after a reserved oral decision yesterday.

The council withdrew another eight charges alleging breaches by the defendant by failing to Inspect vehicles seeking admission the land for dumping purposes.

The Judge said he would take into account the defendant’s financial situ-

ation but that the penalties must be adequate to demonstrate that people could not breach with impunity conditions of district planning schemes. The Judge said that a substantial breach was involved. The offences occurred after penalties imposed on the defendant for breaches which occurred earlier this year. Mr T. M. Abbott appeared for the Paparua County Council, and Mr C. B. Atkinson for the defendant. The charges were denied. The charges related to the period between November, 1979, and May, 1980, when the- council claimed, the defendant was operating the pit concerned. Mr Abbott had earlier told the Court that the defendant

was the registered proprietor of the land in 1977 and had applied to the council for a specified departure to permit him to use the land for dumping refuse. The council granted the application but imposed some stringent restrictions which allowed him to dump only non-noxious hardfill as a condition of the specified departure. Mr Atkinson told the Court that the prosecutions were the culmination of years of litigation betweeij the county and the defendant or his companies. Hoiw-' ever, the defendant had now sold the land and would not be concerned again with operating the tip. The defendant was not in a position to pay a substantial fine, he said.