According to the Environment Agency, Roy Brett, owner of RJ Brett Contracts Ltd near Braintree, has been sentenced at Chelmsford magistrates’ court to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months, after a long-running case over waste handling at a yard in Cressing. The court also fined the company £3,000. Chair of the bench Andrew McGregor said the site created multiple risks to the environment and to human safety, with fire among the main concerns. The prosecution turned on a straightforward point in environmental law: a commercial waste operation of this kind needs the right authorisation and must be run so that waste remains under control. The Environment Agency’s case was that repeated warnings were ignored while the volume of skips and loose waste kept increasing.
The site conditions described in court were central to the outcome. Environment Agency officers said the small yard had no sealed drainage, was open to the elements, and contained wood, metal, textiles and builders’ waste both inside skips and directly on the ground. By early 2025, the yard held almost 50 skips, with some stacked, while odours and the lack of spare space added to the agency’s concern. This point matters because the legal test is not limited to visible untidiness. Where controlled waste is kept in a way likely to cause pollution or harm to human health, criminal liability can follow even before a fire, spill or other incident occurs. Essex Fire and Rescue Service also raised concerns and told Brett to improve housekeeping and stop bringing in waste that could contribute to a fire.
The investigation began in July 2024, when Environment Agency officers found more than a dozen overflowing skips and gave the operator three months to remove the waste. When that deadline passed without improvement, the agency returned and warned that the site had to be cleared or prosecution could follow. The agency said Brett later claimed that he did not use email and had missed written instructions, but officers had also spoken to him in person. The sequence is typical of environmental enforcement. Regulators often begin with inspection, advice and a compliance window. Where conditions worsen rather than improve, the record of warnings becomes part of the prosecution case and helps show that the offending was not accidental or short-lived.
A second important feature of the case was the failed reliance on permit exemptions. Under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, waste facilities generally require an environmental permit unless a narrowly defined exemption applies. Those exemptions are intended for low-risk activity and do not authorise large-scale storage or operations that create clear environmental hazards. According to the Environment Agency, Brett sought to regularise the yard by registering exemptions, but the agency later deregistered them because the site was taking too much waste. Lesley Robertson, the agency’s enforcement team leader for Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, said it was not credible for an experienced waste operator to claim confusion about the need for a permit. She also said operating outside the permitting regime allowed the business to avoid fees and conditions that compliant operators must meet.
The prosecution combined permit offences with powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. RJ Brett Contracts Ltd was charged with operating the waste facility at Lanham Green Road without an environmental permit between 3 July 2024 and 31 January 2025, and again between 1 February 2025 and 30 January 2026. The company was also charged with failing to comply with a notice dated 28 November 2024 requiring controlled waste to be removed by 30 January 2025, and with keeping controlled waste in a manner likely to cause pollution or harm to human health. Brett was prosecuted personally on the basis that he knew of, or contributed to, those breaches. That is an important compliance point. Environmental law does not stop at the corporate entity where there is evidence that a director or manager helped cause the offending. In practice, the regime can reach both the company and the individual running it.
The sentence reflected both punishment and a final opportunity to comply. Brett, 66, of Winstree Road, Stanway, Colchester, was given a six-month prison sentence suspended for 18 months, ordered to complete 30 days of rehabilitation activity, and required to pay a £154 victim surcharge. RJ Brett Contracts Ltd was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay a £1,200 victim surcharge. The Environment Agency said the court also required the waste to be cleared, with Brett facing custody if he commits further offences or fails to complete the clean-up by November. In regulatory terms, the criminal case is doing two jobs at once: sanctioning past conduct and forcing correction of the environmental risk that remained on site.
For policy and compliance audiences, the case is a practical example of how the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 work together. The permitting regime determines whether the activity is lawfully authorised and under what conditions. The 1990 Act then provides notice powers and separate offences where waste is kept in a way that threatens pollution or health. It is also a reminder that exemptions are not a general fallback for commercial waste sites. Once the scale, storage methods or site conditions move beyond low-risk activity, the legal position changes quickly. The government public register allows permit status to be checked, and this case shows why that transparency matters for competitors, local residents and enforcement bodies alike.