Consultation outcome

Annex 1: Detailed summary of consultation responses

Updated 1 July 2025

Š Crown copyright 2025

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at /government/consultations/environment-agency-charge-proposals-for-waste-crime-and-hourly-rates/outcome/annex-1-detailed-summary-of-consultation-responses

This annex sets out the responses we received to our consultation on Environment Agency charge proposals for reducing waste crime and updating time and materials charges.

The consultation questions were divided into several topics:

  • questions about you and your consultation feedback
  • waste exemptions
  • waste fee for intervention
  • waste crime levy
  • time and materials (hourly rate) charge proposals
  • medium combustion plant
  • waste crime
  • additional comments about the charging proposals

We received 1,986 responses through the online tool and consultation response form. We also received 12 emails or letters with comments relating to the consultation.

The total number of responses included feedback to our proposals for waste crime levy and waste fee for intervention. We are still analysing our response to the feedback of these proposals. Our response to both waste crime levy and waste fee for intervention will be published at a later date and will include the responses received to these consultation questions.

In this annex, we report only the feedback received to the specific questions about our proposals for waste exemptions, hourly rate and medium combustion plant.

Questions ‘about you’ and your consultation feedback

Within the online tool and response form, we included an ‘about you’ section to provide us with an understanding of who responded and help us better analyse the consultation feedback.

We asked if respondents were giving a personal response as an individual, or providing their response on behalf of an organisation, group or trade association. The 1,986 responses aligned to our consultation format (1,939 submitted online and 47 sent on a response form), stated:

  • responding as an individual – 1,074
  • responding on behalf of an organisation, group or trade association – 715
  • other – 141
  • no answer given – 56

For the 715 responses sent on behalf of an organisation, group or trade association, we also asked how many people work there: 

  • sole trader – 50
  • fewer than 10 – 337
  • 11 to 49 – 134
  • 50 to 249 – 83
  • 250 to 999 – 37
  • more than 1,000 – 60
  • no answer given – 14

The main areas of business for these 715 responses sent on behalf of an organisation, group or trade association were: 

  • farming – 236
  • waste – 119
  • energy production – 7
  • radioactivity – 6
  • chemicals – 10
  • other – 323
  • no answer given – 4

Respondents were asked how they found out about the consultation:

  • from the Environment Agency – 1,715
  • from another organisation – 57
  • through an organisation, group or trade association you are a member of – 32
  • social media, for example, Facebook – 11
  • press article – 8
  • through a meeting you attended – 8
  • other – 120
  • no response given – 35

Consultation questions

Questions are set out below in the same format as they were presented in the online consultation tool and response form. Multiple-choice questions offered respondents the option to select one response. These questions were followed by a free text box for comments.

For each question, we report all the multiple-choice option responses. These are followed by a list of themes identified most frequently in the free text comments.

Themes or key points: We reviewed the free text comments and used content analysis to define and group recurrent ideas or concerns. We used descriptive labels (called tags) to summarise specific ideas. More than one tag can be linked to a comment. We then grouped tags of a similar nature within a theme. Themes help us describe the overall response to each question and show where particular points were made about the proposal, consultation, environment or Environment Agency.

Themes are listed in descending order, starting with those identified most frequently. Within this annex:

  • the list for questions 1 to 17 and 31 to 32 (which received more comments) includes themes with at least 25 tags identified
  • the list for questions 18 to 30 (which received fewer comments) includes themes with at least 15 tags identified

The most frequent tag is noted next to each theme in the list, alongside further tags we identified at least 10 times. The number of times a tag was identified is given in brackets. Comments are tagged ‘not applicable’ if no relevant themes were identified.

Waste exemptions

Proposed registration and ‘common on-farm’ compliance charges

Question 1: Do you agree or disagree with our proposed charge for the registration of waste exemptions?

This question received more negative (790) than positive responses (500):

  • strongly agree – 77
  • agree – 423
  • neither agree nor disagree – 493
  • disagree – 326
  • strongly disagree – 464
  • do not know – 65
  • not applicable – 27
  • did not answer – 111

Free text comments were submitted by 796 respondents to the consultation (40%), the most common themes were:

  • impact for customers – ‘economic impact for customers’ (147); ‘charge is high (56); ‘wider economic issues’ (50); ‘increased regulatory burden (36)
  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (128); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (54); ‘link charge to risk or performance’ (13)
  • support for proposal – ‘partially agree with proposal’ (133); ‘agrees with proposal’ (80)
  • our business approach – ‘likelihood of more unregulated activity’ (69); ‘criminals should pay’ (38); ‘seek other funding’ (23)
  • protect the environment – ‘risks from increased illegal activity’ (43); ‘more enforcement needed’ (20)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘service provided by EA’
  • ’other issues’
  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 181 ‘not applicable’ comments .

Question 2: Do you agree or disagree with the waste exemptions included within our proposed ‘common on-farm’ compliance charge?

This question received more positive (821) than negative responses (298):

  • strongly agree – 107
  • agree – 714
  • neither agree nor disagree – 413
  • disagree – 143
  • strongly disagree – 155
  • do not know – 79
  • not applicable – 238
  • did not answer – 137

Free text comments were submitted by 557 respondents to the consultation (28%), the most common themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (142); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (77)
  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (152); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (16)
  • impact for customers – ‘economic impact for customers’ (18); ‘wider economic issues’ (16); ‘increased regulatory burden’ (10)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘our business approach
  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ’other issues’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ‘service provided by the EA’

There were 108 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Question 3: Do you agree or disagree with our proposed ‘common on-farm’ compliance charge?

This question received more negative (662) than positive responses (438).

  • strongly agree – 32
  • agree – 406
  • neither agree nor disagree – 417
  • disagree – 281
  • strongly disagree – 381
  • do not know – 90
  • not applicable – 239
  • did not answer – 140

Free text comments were submitted by 763 respondents to the consultation (38%), the most common themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (190); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (21); ‘proposal too complex’ (21)
  • impact for customers – ‘economic impact for customers’ (107); ‘charge is high’ (52); ‘increased regulatory burden’ (27); ‘wider economic issues’ (10)
  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (91); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (42)
  • our business approach – ‘doubt regarding our approach’ (50); ‘likelihood of more unregulated activity’ (32); ‘criminals should pay’ (29)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘service provided by EA
  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ’other issues’

There were 108 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Proposed compliance charge banding

Question 4: Do you agree or disagree with the waste exemptions included within the proposed band 1 (see table 2) for waste exemptions?

This question received more positive (531) than negative responses (321):

  • strongly agree – 47
  • agree – 484
  • neither agree nor disagree – 607
  • disagree – 154
  • strongly disagree – 167
  • do not know – 182
  • not applicable – 193
  • did not answer – 152

Free text comments were submitted by 456 respondents to the consultation (23%), the main themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (180); ‘proposal too complex’ (25)
  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (60); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (21)
  • impact for customers – ‘economic impact for customers’ (17); ‘increased regulatory burden’ (15)
  • our business approach – ‘likelihood of more unregulated activity’ (9); ‘seek other funding’ (9)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘service provided by EA’
  • ’other issues’
  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 105 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Question 5: Do you agree or disagree with the waste exemptions included within the proposed band 2 (see table 3) for waste exemptions?

This question received more positive (494) than negative responses (305):

  • strongly agree – 36
  • agree – 458
  • neither agree nor disagree – 622
  • disagree – 167
  • strongly disagree – 138
  • do not know – 184
  • not applicable – 217
  • did not answer – 164

Free text comments were submitted by 382 respondents to the consultation (19%), the main themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (138); ‘link charge to risk or performance’ (27); ‘green, climate or environmental considerations’ (21); ‘proposal too complex’ (16)
  • impact for customers – ‘economic impact for customers’ (23); ‘charge is high’ (15); ‘increased regulatory burden’ (10); ‘underestimated economic impact’ (10)
  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (39); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (15)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘service we provide’

  • ‘our business approach’

  • ‘protect the environment’

  • ‘other issues’

  • ‘the consultation design’

There weere104 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Question 6: Do you agree or disagree with the waste exemptions included within the proposed band 3 (see table 4) for waste exemptions?

This question received more positive (559) than negative responses (261):

  • strongly agree – 37
  • agree – 522
  • neither agree nor disagree – 631
  • disagree – 138
  • strongly disagree – 123
  • do not know – 192
  • not applicable – 181
  • did not answer – 162

Free text comments were submitted by 327 respondents to the consultation (16%), the main themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (108)
  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (48); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (22)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘impact for customers’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ‘service we provide’

There were 117 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Question 7: Do you agree or disagree with the waste exemptions included within the proposed upper band (see table 5) for waste exemptions?

This question received more positive (534) than negative responses (205):

  • strongly agree – 57
  • agree – 477
  • neither agree nor disagree – 586
  • disagree – 108
  • strongly disagree – 97
  • do not know – 181
  • not applicable – 328
  • did not answer – 152

Free text comments were submitted by 325 respondents to the consultation (16%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (74); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (25)
  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (34); ‘green, climate or environmental considerations’ (17); ‘proposal too complex’ (12); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (10)
  • impact for customers – ‘economic impact for customers’ (23)
  • protect the environment – ‘risks from increased illegal activity’ (19)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘our business approach’
  • ’other issues’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 131 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Proposed charges for the compliance bands

Question 8: Do you agree or disagree with our proposed compliance charges for waste exemptions, as shown in table 6?

This question received more negative (551) than positive responses (356):

  • strongly agree – 18
  • agree – 338
  • neither agree nor disagree – 588
  • disagree – 263
  • strongly disagree – 288
  • do not know – 159
  • not applicable – 158
  • did not answer – 174

Free text comments were submitted by 501 respondents to the consultation (25%), the main themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (155); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (43); ‘proposal too complex’ (21); ‘link charge to risk or performance’ (10)
  • impact for customers – ‘charge is high’ (84); ‘wider economic issues’ (37); ‘increased regulatory burden (29); ‘economic impact for customers’ (25); ‘underestimated economic impact’ (12)
  • protect the environment – ‘risks from increased illegal activity’ (54); ‘more enforcement needed’ (12); ‘more effective regulation needed’ (10)
  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (41); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (22)
  • service we provide – ‘more transparency’ (27)
  • our business approach – ‘seek other funding’ (18); ‘doubt regarding our approach’ (14)
  • other issues – ‘other’ (28)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 37 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Question 9: Do you agree or disagree with our proposed additional compliance charges for multiple waste exemptions, as shown in table 7?

This question received more negative (582) than positive responses (380):

  • strongly agree – 19
  • agree – 361
  • neither agree nor disagree – 563
  • disagree – 282
  • strongly disagree – 300
  • do not know – 158
  • not applicable – 133
  • did not answer – 170

Free text comments were submitted by 454 respondents to the consultation (23%), the main themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (108); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (50); ‘proposal too complex’; (16)
  • impact for customers – ‘charge is high’ (63); ‘wider economic issues’ (37); economic impact for customers’ (17); ‘increased regulatory burden’ (11)
  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (60); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (38)
  • protect the environment – ‘risks from increased illegal activity’ (35); ‘more effective regulation needed’ (11)
  • our business approach – ‘doubt regarding our approach’ (17)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ’other issues’

There were 56 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Affordability

Question 10: Do you agree or disagree with our view on affordability?

This question received more negative (731) than positive responses (431):

  • strongly agree – 29
  • agree – 402
  • neither agree nor disagree – 478
  • disagree – 324
  • strongly disagree – 407
  • do not know – 86
  • not applicable – 109
  • did not answer – 151

Free text comments were submitted by 632 respondents to the consultation (31%), the main themes were:

  • impact for customers – ‘economic impact for customers’ (307); ‘underestimated economic impact’ (66); ‘wider economic issues’ (38); ‘charge is high’ (28); ‘increased regulatory burden’ (23)
  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (99); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (35); ‘proposal too complex’ (14); ‘green, climate or environmental considerations’ (11)
  • our business approach – ‘doubt regarding our approach’ (74); ‘likelihood of more unregulated activity’ (43); ‘criminals should pay’ (16)
  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (37); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (24)
  • service we provide – ‘poor or declining service’ (14); ‘increased charge should improve our service’ (11)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ’other issues’
  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 45 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Question 11: Some waste exemptions are registered by charities or trusts. Do you think operators using exemptions for charitable purposes should pay for them?

In this question “charitable purposes” has the meaning given in section 2 of the . We received a similar number of positive (506) and negative responses (489). The 1,939 responses we received online said:

  • strongly agree – 118
  • agree – 388
  • neither agree nor disagree – 492
  • disagree – 269
  • strongly disagree – 220
  • do not know – 158
  • not applicable – 142
  • did not answer – 152

And 47 further responses aligning to our response form said:

  • no, they should not pay anything – 15
  • yes, but they should pay a reduced charge – 9
  • yes, they should pay the same charges as other operators – 10
  • did not answer – 13

Free text comments were submitted by 545 respondents to the consultation (27%), the main themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (430); all customers should pay charge (no exclusions)’ (38); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (21); ‘green, climate or environmental considerations’ (16)
  • support for proposal – ‘partially agree with proposal’ (33)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘impact for customers’
  • ‘our business approach’
  • ’other issues’
  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 43 ‘not applicable’ comments

Additional free text comments suggesting other options were submitted by 252 respondents to the consultation (13%), the main themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (93); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (65); ‘link charge to risk or performance’ (13)
  • our business approach – ‘criminals should pay’ (15); ‘doubt regarding our approach’ (11)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘impact for customers’
  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ‘support for proposal’
  • ’other issues’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 63 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Other questions on waste exemptions

Question 12: Do you agree or disagree with our proposal to offer operators who transition to an environmental permit a partial refund of the compliance element of the charge?

This question received more positive (663) than negative responses (93):

  • strongly agree – 104
  • agree – 559
  • neither agree nor disagree – 618
  • disagree – 50
  • strongly disagree – 43
  • do not know – 276
  • not applicable – 168
  • did not answer – 168

Free text comments were submitted by 328 respondents to the consultation (16%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (142); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (26)
  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (29); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (21); ‘link charge to risk or performance’ (14); ‘green, climate or environmental considerations’ (13)
  • other issues – ‘other’ (52)
  • impact for customers – ‘charge is high’ (31)
  • the consultation design – ‘information is confusing’ (33)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ‘service we provide’

There were 41 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Additional free text comments describing other circumstances where consultees thought we should refund waste exemption charges were submitted by 175 respondents to the consultation (9%), the main themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (59); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (50); ‘link charge to risk or performance’ (21); ‘green, climate or environmental considerations’ (20)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ’other issues’
  • ‘impact for customers’
  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘support for proposal’
  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 36 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Question 13: Please share any additional comments that you think may help us improve our current proposals for waste exemptions.

Free text comments were submitted by 336 respondents to the consultation (17%), the main themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (51); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (51); ‘proposal too complex’ (20); ‘link charge to risk or performance’ (16)
  • impact for customers – ‘charge is high’ (48); ‘economic impact for customers’ (39); ‘increased regulatory burden’ (21)
  • our business approach – ‘likelihood of more unregulated activity’ (20); ‘criminals should pay’ (16); ‘doubt regarding our approach’ (13); ‘seek other funding’ (11)
  • protect the environment – ‘risks from increased illegal activity’ (20); ‘more effective regulation needed’ (12); ‘more enforcement needed’ (10)
  • service we provide – ‘increased charge should improve our service’ (11); ‘more transparency’ (11)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘support for proposal’
  • ’other issues’
  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 60 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Waste fee for intervention

Questions 14 and 15 of this consultation relate to our proposals for waste fee for intervention. We are still considering the feedback received to these questions and will publish our response at a later date.

Waste crime levy

Questions 16 and 17 of this consultation relate to our proposals for waste crime levy. We are still considering the feedback received to these questions and will publish our response at a later date.

Time and materials (hourly rate) charge proposals

Unplanned events

Question 18: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to the hourly rate for unplanned events supplementary subsistence activities?

This question received more positive (156) than negative responses (131):

  • strongly agree – 15
  • agree – 141
  • neither agree nor disagree – 208
  • disagree – 68
  • strongly disagree – 63
  • do not know – 43
  • not applicable – 38
  • did not answer – 1,410

Free text comments were submitted by 150 respondents to the consultation (8%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘partially agree with proposal’ (29); ‘agrees with proposal’ (29)
  • impact for customers – ‘charge is high’ (23)
  • our business approach – ‘doubt regarding our approach’ (12)
  • service we provide – ‘more transparency’ (  23)
  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (5); ‘all customers should pay charge (no exclusions)’ (5)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 18 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Radioactive substances (nuclear and non-nuclear activity)

Question 19: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to the hourly rate for radioactive substances activities carried out by a nuclear specialist?

This question received more positive responses (139) than negative responses (46):

  • strongly agree – 22
  • agree – 117
  • neither agree nor disagree – 173
  • disagree – 21
  • strongly disagree – 25
  • do not know – 47
  • not applicable – 149
  • did not answer – 1,432

Free text comments were submitted by 89 respondents to the consultation (4%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (22); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (11)
  • impact for customers – ‘charge is high’ (12)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘charge scheme design’
  • the consultation design’
  • ‘protect the environment’

There were 33 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Question 20: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to the hourly rate for any other work carried out in relation to radioactive substances permits?

This question received more positive (130) than negative responses (40):

  • strongly agree – 26
  • agree – 104
  • neither agree nor disagree – 176
  • disagree – 18
  • strongly disagree – 22
  • do not know – 46
  • not applicable – 149
  • did not answer – 1,445

Free text comments were submitted by 65 respondents to the consultation (3%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (21)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘impact for customers’
  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘charge scheme design’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ‘protect the environment’

There were 28 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Nuclear off-site emergency plan testing (under REPPIR)

Question 21: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed hourly rate charges for REPPIR nuclear off-site emergency plan testing?

This question received more positive (121) than negative responses (49):

  • strongly agree – 20
  • agree – 101
  • neither agree nor disagree – 176
  • disagree – 20
  • strongly disagree – 29
  • do not know – 51
  • not applicable – 167
  • did not answer – 1,422

Free text comments were submitted by 71 respondents to the consultation (4%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (21)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘impact for customers’
  • ‘charge scheme design’
  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 26 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Control of major accident hazards (COMAH)

Question 22: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to the hourly rate for incident exercise activity for COMAH?

This question received more positive (134) than negative responses (71):

  • strongly agree – 22
  • agree – 112
  • neither agree nor disagree – 194
  • disagree – 34
  • strongly disagree – 37
  • do not know – 52
  • not applicable – 111
  • did not answer – 1,424

Free text comments were submitted by 79 respondents to the consultation (4%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (20); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (10)
  • impact for customers – ‘charge is high’ (14)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘charge scheme design’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘protect the environment’

There were 17 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Question 23: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to the hourly rate for COMAH compliance activity?

This question received more positive (115) than negative responses (85):

  • strongly agree – 20
  • agree – 95
  • neither agree nor disagree – 189
  • disagree – 40
  • strongly disagree – 45
  • do not know – 52
  • not applicable – 110
  • did not answer – 1,435

Free text comments were submitted by 78 respondents to the consultation (4%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (19)
  • impact for customers – ‘charge is high’ (22)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘charge scheme design’
  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘protect the environment’

None of the comments were ‘not applicable’.

Water pollution incident activity

Question 24: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to the hourly rate for water pollution incidents?

This question received more positive (201) than negative responses (106):

  • strongly agree – 38
  • agree – 163
  • neither agree nor disagree – 183
  • disagree – 48
  • strongly disagree – 58
  • do not know – 43
  • not applicable – 47
  • did not answer – 1,406

Free text comments were submitted by 129 respondents to the consultation (6%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (37); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (11)
  • protect the environment – ‘more effective regulation needed’ (16)
  • our business approach – ‘criminals should pay’ (8)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘impact for customers’
  • ‘charge scheme design’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ’other issues’

There were 24 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Definition of waste

Question 25: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to the hourly rate for work carried out by the definition of waste service?

This question received more positive (121) than negative responses (118):

  • strongly agree – 17
  • agree – 104
  • neither agree nor disagree – 218
  • disagree – 67
  • strongly disagree – 51
  • do not know – 59
  • not applicable – 60
  • did not answer – 1,410

Free text comments were submitted by 105 respondents to the consultation (5%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (18)
  • impact for customers – ‘charge is high’ (17)
  • our business approach – ‘likelihood of more unregulated activity’ (8)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘charge scheme design’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ’other issues’

There were 20 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Hydraulic fracturing plans

Question 26: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to the hourly rate for work relating to hydraulic fracturing plans?

This question received more positive (97) than negative responses (52):

  • strongly agree – 21
  • agree – 76
  • neither agree nor disagree – 199
  • disagree – 27
  • strongly disagree – 25
  • do not know – 56
  • not applicable – 162
  • did not answer – 1,420

Free text comments were submitted by 60 respondents to the consultation (3%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (15)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘impact for customers’
  • ‘charge scheme design’
  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘the consultation design’

There were 27 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Planning activity (work of our Sustainable Places teams)

Question 27: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to the hourly rate for planning activity (work of our Sustainable Places teams)?

This question received more positive (116) than negative responses (107):

  • strongly agree – 15
  • agree – 101
  • neither agree nor disagree – 199
  • disagree – 63
  • strongly disagree – 44
  • do not know – 51
  • not applicable – 102
  • did not answer – 1,411

Free text comments were submitted by 101 respondents to the consultation (5%):

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (20)
  • impact for customers – ‘charge is high’ (16)
  • service we provide – ‘poor or declining service’ (9)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘charge scheme design’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ’other issues’

None of the comments were ‘not applicable’.

Voluntary remediation (legacy pollution)

Question 28: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed charge for a discretionary service offering advice on voluntary remediation (legacy pollution)?

This question received more positive (141) than negative responses (119):

  • strongly agree – 21
  • agree – 120
  • neither agree nor disagree – 191
  • disagree – 63
  • strongly disagree – 56
  • do not know – 52
  • not applicable – 75
  • did not answer – 1,408

Free text comments were submitted by 118 respondents to the consultation (6%), the main themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘charging and permitting policy’ (37); ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (10)
  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (27); ‘partially agree with proposal’ (16)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘impact for customers’
  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ’other issues’

There were 17 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Hourly rates

Question 29: Please share any additional comments you think may help us to improve our hourly rate charge proposals. (Specify which charge if relevant.)

Free text comments were submitted by 86 respondents to the consultation (4%), the main themes were:

  • service we provide – ‘more transparency’ (15)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘impact for customers’
  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘support for proposal’
  • ‘charge scheme design’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ‘protect the environment’
  • ’other issues’

There were 25 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Medium combustion plant annual subsistence charges

Question 30: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to medium combustion plant annual subsistence charges?

This question received more positive responses (69) than negative responses (24):

  • strongly agree – 6
  • agree – 63
  • neither agree nor disagree – 154
  • disagree – 10
  • strongly disagree – 14
  • do not know – 43
  • not applicable – 93
  • did not answer – 1,603

Most consultees (1,603 of 1,998) did not answer this question. A technical issue prevented the first 97 online respondents from viewing this question in the online consultation tool. We took the consultation offline from 2:10pm until 2:48pm on 14 November 2024 whilst we fixed this issue. We then contacted all consultees who had provided their email address (84 of the first 97 respondents) offering them the opportunity to respond to question 30. To make sure the remaining 13 consultees were given an opportunity to respond to this question, we reissued our email inviting customers to respond to the consultation. This email included a note for consultees who already responded, offering an opportunity to view and respond to question 30.

Free text comments were submitted by 48 respondents to the consultation (2%), the main themes were:

  • support for proposal – ‘agrees with proposal’ (18)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘charge scheme design’
  • ‘the consultation design’
  • ‘impact for customers’
  • ‘other issues’
  • ‘service we provide’
  • ‘our business approach’
  • ‘protect the environment’

There were 12 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Waste crime

Question 31 of this consultation relates to waste crime. We are still considering the feedback received to this question and will publish our response at a later date.

Additional comments about the charging proposals 

Question 32: Please share any additional comments that you think may help us improve our current proposals or future consultations.

Free text comments were submitted by 262 respondents to the consultation (13%), the main themes were:

  • charge scheme design – ‘other suggestion for proposal’ (21); ‘proposal too complex’ (21); ‘charging and permitting policy’ (19); ‘all customers should pay charge (no exclusions)’ (15)
  • our business approach – ‘criminals should pay’ (28); ‘likelihood of more unregulated activity’ (10); ‘doubt regarding our approach’ (10)
  • protect the environment – ‘more effective regulation needed’ (27); ‘risks from increased illegal activity’ (18)
  • impact for customers – ‘economic impact for customers’ (24); ‘charge is high’ (18)
  • service we provide – ‘more transparency’ (13)
  • the consultation design – ‘insufficient information’ (11)

The following themes were identified less often:

  • ‘support for proposal’
  • ’other issues’

There were 37 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Letter and email responses

We analysed all comments in the 12 responses submitted by letter, email or phone call. These responses did not align with our consultation question format. For these responses, the main themes (those identified two or more times) and associated tags were identified. The number of times a tag was identified is given in brackets. Tags that were only identified once are not listed. The main themes were:

  • our business approach – ‘criminals should pay’ (2); ‘likelihood of more unregulated activity’ (2); ‘seek other funding’ (2)
  • impact for customers – ‘economic impact for customers’ (6)
  • Support for proposal – ‘partially agree with proposal’ (3); ‘agrees with proposal’ (2)
  • charge scheme design – ‘all customers should pay charge (no exclusions)’ (2)
  • the consultation design – ‘information is confusing’ (2)
  • protect the environment – ‘more effective regulation needed’ (2)

The following theme was identified less often:

  • ’other issues’

There were 2 ‘not applicable’ comments.

Back to top