伊人直播

IN THE EASTERN TRAFFIC AREA

SBR FOXHILLS LIMITED 鈥� OF2065193

CONFIRMATION OF THE TRAFFIC COMMISSIONER鈥橲 DECISION

Background

SBR Foxhills Ltd holds a Restricted Goods Vehicle Operator鈥檚 Licence authorising 2 vehicles and 2 trailers. The Director is Matthew James Berry.

There is one Operating Centre at Red House Farm, Blyborough, Gainsborough DN21 4HB. Preventative Maintenance Inspections are said to be carried out in-house at 6-weekly intervals.

It is a matter of record that, in seeking the licence, the operator declared convictions recorded against the Director before the Burnley Crown Court. Those convictions were found to be spent, and the application was granted, but the operator was aware of the obligation to notify me of relevant matters.

Hearing

The Public Inquiry was listed for today, 2 October 2025, in Tribunal Room 1 of the Office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cambridge. The operator failed to appear.

Issues

The public inquiry was called at the request of the operators and following notice 聽that I was considering grounds to intervene in respect of this licence and specifically by reference to the following sections of the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act:

• 26(1)(b) 鈥� conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to notifiable convictions, available financial resources and to meet the licence requirements.
• Section 26(1)(c)(i) and (ii) 鈥� that the licence holder and/or servants or agents of the licence holder have been convicted of notifiable convictions.
• 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements to abide by conditions on the licence.
• 26(1)(h) 鈥� material change in fitness to hold the licence and in the availability of finance required.
• 28 鈥� Disqualification.

The operator was directed to lodge evidence in support, including financial, maintenance and other compliance documentation. The latter documentation was to be with DVSA for analysis by 11 September 2025, with the remaining financial evidence and any representations to be with my office by 18 September 2025. Nothing was received and there was no relevant communication from the operator.

Determination

On 7 May 2025, before the Lincoln Crown Court, SBR Foxhills Limited and Mr Berry were convicted of running an illegal waste site at Thorpe Farm, Skendleby. It was reported that the operator and its Director initially entered pleas of Not Guilty in June 2022, but shortly before the trial commenced in November 2023, those pleas were changed, and they accepted their guilt. The operator was apparently fined 拢20,000 and ordered to pay costs of 拢29,626.35 plus a surcharge. Mr Berry was made the subject of a suspended sentence of 36 weeks, with a curfew requirement lasting 3 months. He was ordered to pay 拢5,000 in costs, plus a surcharge. The defendants were made subject of a confiscation order totalling 拢45,000. Mr Berry was warned that he faced up to 12 months imprisonment if that sum was not paid in full after 3 months.

My office was alerted to the prosecution by an Environmental Agency press release dated 9 May 2025. That referred to an indictment on two counts:

• Count 1: operating a non-exempt waste operation without a permit, contrary to Regulations 12 and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.
• Particulars of offence: that SBR Foxhills Ltd, between the 8 April 2021 and 26 February 2022, operated without an environmental permit a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for the treatment and storage of waste at Thorpe Farm, Skendleby.
• Count 2: operating a non-exempt waste operation without a permit, contrary to Regulations 12 and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.
• Particulars of offence: Matthew Berry, between the 8 April 2021 and 26 February 2022, by his consent, connivance or neglect, allowed a company, namely SBR Foxhills Ltd, to operate without an environmental permit a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for the treatment and storage of waste at Thorpe Farm, Skendleby.

The report states that in the spring of 2021, Mr Berry became interested in a site at Thorpe Farm. With a view to the company purchasing the site, he took over the control in April and began a clearance operation. The site had no environmental permit or other authorisation to store or treat waste. It is said that there was a lot of waste already on the site and that Mr Berry agreed to move baled waste that had been stacked in a building. He also agreed to remove waste vehicles to a breakers鈥� site and brought heavy plant to the site for that purpose. However, rather than clearing and improving the site, it was alleged that Mr Berry dumped the baled waste on a concrete pad that was porous, cracked, had no sealed drainage and had an unsealed manhole cover that led to a void. He then abandoned the site leaving the baled waste exposed to the elements, which inevitably caused the waste to degrade.

It was said that the enforcing authority attempted to engage with Mr Berry in relation to the stored waste; 鈥淥fficers continued to try to work with him but their attempts were rejected. On one occasion, Berry verbally berated a senior officer telling him that he hoped he got cancer and died. Not content with his verbal abuse, he followed up his unpleasant words a few minutes later with a similarly offensive email.鈥� In sentencing Mr Berry, HH Judge Sjolin Knight described his 鈥渁rrogant and bullish approach.鈥� She found it 鈥渞emarkable鈥� that he claimed not to have established what his environmental obligations might be. She concluded that he had run his business in such a way that he had 鈥渧iolated strict environmental laws that are there to protect the environment for everyone.鈥�

The operator was put on formal notice of the potential consequences for this licence in a letter dated 12 June 2025. A response dated 23 June 2025 requested this Public Inquiry.

On 24 September 2025, my office received an email from Matt Berry, who was described as a Director of SBR Group, indicating that he had instructed OLMC to surrender the licence held by SBR Foxhills Ltd from 30 September 2025. I have yet to receive any correspondence or signed authority to that effect. 聽

Based on the evidence summarised above, I proceeded to make adverse findings under the following sections: 26(1)(b) 鈥� conditions on licence to notify changes, in this case relating to notifiable convictions, available financial resources and to meet the licence requirements; Section 26(1)(c)(i) and (ii) 鈥� that the licence holder and/or servants or agents of the licence holder have been convicted of notifiable convictions; 26(1)(e) 鈥� statements to abide by conditions on the licence, and 26(1)(h) in the absence of any evidence so that I might satisfy myself as to the availability of required finance.

In 2013/007 Redsky Wholesalers Ltd the Upper Tribunal approved of the application of the Priority Freight question (2009/225) namely: how likely is it that the operator will comply in future. There were no positives present, indeed no evidence of any compliance. The convictions were indicative of the operator鈥檚 approach to regulatory requirements. The events demonstrate a willingness to circumvent the law for commercial gain. These are not the actions of a responsible operator. I was therefore satisfied that the operator should be removed from licensed operations. I have recorded that it is no longer fit to hold a licence, pursuant to section 26(1)(h).

This was blatant criminal activity which would clearly undermine the licensing jurisdiction were there not be deterrent action. I have therefore consulted the Senior Traffic Commissioner鈥檚 Statutory Document No. 10. I have noted that the examples given of serious cases are not exhaustive, suggesting a starting point of between 5 to 10 years, with deliberate actions suggesting that it might even be categorised as a severe case. In failing to appear the operator has deprived me and itself from representations on the appropriate length of disqualification. In the circumstances I have made the operator and Director subject to orders under section 28 disqualifying them for an indeterminate period. Were they to seek to vary either of those orders the application would need to be placed before a Traffic Commissioner whose attention should be directed to the above observations.

R Turfitt

Traffic Commissioner

2 October 2025