Consultation outcome

Waste fee for intervention: overview of feedback and our response

Updated 15 May 2026

We proposed a new ‘fee for intervention’ (FFI) to recover the costs of investigating and resolving breaches under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 at waste operations. Both the incidence of waste crime, and the cost of countering it, are increasing. Illegal waste operations pose a significant risk to human health, the environment and legitimate businesses.

Some regulatory waste enforcement activities, such as taking action against those operating without the required environmental permit, are currently funded through grant-in-aid from general taxation revenue. We want to make sure those that cause environmental damage bear the costs of managing it, whilst reducing the cost burden on general taxation and our reliance on a government grant. We will do this by altering the way we are funded in relation to tackling waste crime and by creating additional income through measures such as the FFI. Our Strategic Review of Charges in 2018 established our approach to using time and materials (hourly rates) charging where we incur additional costs dealing with specific customers.

The FFI charge will commence when a breach is reasonably suspected. We will charge £103.80 per hour for Environment Agency officer time plus materials. We originally consulted on a £100 per hour rate but annual inflation increases that apply to all EA regulatory charges and hourly rates from April 2026 will come into effect at the same time as the FFI is implemented. The charge covers the interventions required to bring activities and operators into compliance with environmental regulation or stop the waste operation from continuing. It would not cover the costs associated with prosecutions which can be recovered through the court system, or costs that overlap other charging schemes. This fee makes sure that regulatory costs are distributed fairly, with criminals paying for their own interventions. The fee aligns with our ‘polluter pays’ principle, targeting operations where breaches are suspected.

Overall, the FFI proposal received positive support. The response (excluding those who did not answer, or selected ‘do not know’ or ‘not applicable’) was:

• 43% strongly agree or agree
• 38% neither agree nor disagree
• 19% disagree or strongly disagree

Within the comments we received, several themes emerged.

Impact for customers – feedback

Some respondents said they were not sure about the level of our proposed charge and commented that the charge was too high to be considered reasonable. Others felt the charge was still inexpensive compared with the cost of complying with regulations. Some respondents suggested that the hourly rate should reflect the size of the operation being regulated. Examples of this are:

“How do you justify £100 per hour. Greedy.”

“How did EA agree to the price of £100 per hour plus materials as there is no explanation as to why this fee is such a high amount.”

“I appreciate there would be a charge for intervention, but is £100 per hour realistic when the living wage is set at £12.21 from April 2025?”

“£100 per hour seems very cheap compared to the compliance costs. Should there not be a more punitive approach?”

“The proposed charge for interventions at non-permitted waste activities supports the ‘polluter pays’ principle (section 17(5) of the Environment Act 2021)…”

“…the charges appear to be disproportionality low compared to those charges incurred by those who are compliant.”

“The charge should be more than £100 per hour.”

Impact for customers – our response

Whilst we understand respondents’ varying views about the level of our FFI hourly rate, with both sides of the argument expressed, we confirm that any billing will be based on the actual costs incurred during an intervention. Hourly rates are based on our direct and indirect costs, as set out in our guidance on how the Environment Agency calculates its charges. The modelling process meets HM Treasury’s guidance on managing public money. We have undergone scrutiny on our costs and hourly rate, both internally and with colleagues from Defra. This public consultation also provided another platform from which to verify our assessments. We have undergone scrutiny on our costs and hourly rate, both internally and with colleagues from Defra. This public consultation also provided another platform from which to verify our assessments.

We will not make a profit from FFI, our aim is to recover the costs we incur by undertaking the intervention. As the nature of waste crime changes over time, the hourly rate will be reviewed on an ongoing basis to make sure it continues to reflect the work undertaken.

Some respondents suggested that the level of FFI should be punitive to illegal waste site operators. However, it is important to note that the recovery of our costs is not a sanction or punishment. This is part of our approach to creating a sustainable funding model for tackling waste crime in the future, reducing our dependence on government grants and the public purse. Regulatory decisions made by enforcement governance groups follow our established Enforcement and Sanctions Policy and will be independent of our FFI cost recovery process.

Business approach – feedback

Feedback indicated many customers thought criminals should pay for the cost of regulating activity at unauthorised waste operations, and some were concerned that the FFI might lead to changes in regulatory behaviour.

Criminals should pay

Respondents agreed with our principle of the ‘polluter pays’, a longstanding concept that those responsible for environmental damage should pay to cover the associated costs. It was widely stated by respondents that the costs of regulating illegal operators should be borne by them, rather than either compliant operators or the public purse. Such comments included:

“It seems reasonable to recover these costs from non-compliant operators. It will encourage compliance and protect the environment from harm. Compliant operators will see that their efforts are worthwhile and their additional expenses justified.”

“Charge the offender to cover your costs.”

“The cost of bringing rogue operators within the regulated environment should be borne by them.”

“Illegal operators must pay for the costs of enforcement activities against illegal operators. This cost should NOT fall upon either the taxpayer or compliant (permitted) businesses.”

“This backs up the polluter pays principal and ensures operators are held accountable for their activities.”

“If you broke the rules either accidentally or deliberately it should not fall to the general public to foot the bill via other taxes.”

Risk of changed regulatory behaviour

Some concerns were raised by respondents who thought the opportunity to recover our costs through the FFI may negatively change the way we regulate, chasing easy financial targets rather than those causing the greatest harm:

“This creates a system whereby you are incentivised to take action as you will be able to draw in more in fees. You can’t simply have a carte blanche option to charge whomever you like. You should be focused where time will be most effectively utilised.”

“The main beneficiary from these charges will be the government and the EA to charge without proof or question is open to abuse and I can see inspections of sites becoming a coffers filling exercise. The government should fund their Waste Guard dog not the industry.”

“You have to be careful about creating a system that is reliant on fines. You will end up with your employees being motivated by finding easy targets to accumulate fines as opposed to the improvement of the environment.”

“While in principle we agree that those sites that need intervention should pay, there is a risk that Environment Agency officers purposely find ways to intervene in order to increase charges…”

“It’s like a Traffic warden getting paid on how many cars he can ticket!”

“If the EA charge for interventions and voluntary improvements then less people will contact the EA and question the purpose of the EA - as always looking to charge to recover costs rather than protection of the environment.”

Business approach – our response

Criminals should pay

The cost of regulatory activity at waste operations without appropriate authorisations is currently funded through government grants. We commit significant resource in dealing with these interventions, acting out of necessity to manage environmental risks. However, to date, the costs of doing so are not adequately charged nor paid by the polluter. The effort required varies and is dependent on the circumstances of the waste operation and the approach of the operator. Where possible the cost of resolving illegal activities should be recovered from those operators causing pollution and operating without the benefit of an appropriate authorisation.

We recognise that when dealing with operators of illegal sites it may be common for debts to go unpaid. We will robustly escalate action to recover any unpaid debts and follow our debt management process. In line with other time and materials (hourly rate) schemes, debts could be considered as part of operator competency for any subsequent environmental permit application. No discretionary services such as pre-application advice will be undertaken until the account is settled. Failure to pay the FFI may indicate an inability to comply with permit conditions or waste exemptions in the future.

There are difficulties in recovering our costs from illegal operators, even through the courts, which is why the FFI is only part of our approach to a sustainable funding model for tackling waste crime.

Risk of changed regulatory behaviour

We aim to provide compliance and enforcement activity that is prompt and efficient. We must be consistent, transparent and accountable. In the delivery of our compliance and enforcement activity for waste operations, we have to prioritise, allocate and review the use of our resources. We seek to be outcome focussed, so the resources available are used proportionately to risk. Governance decisions are part of an audit trail complying with our Enforcement and Sanctions Policy. We aim to operate as one business across all areas and functions providing a consistency of service.

As part of the instructions for staff that will accompany this process, robust systems will be put in place to make sure consistency of application, alongside existing prioritisation methodology. We will regularly review the use and application of FFI within areas and across the wider business to make sure that it is being used in a fair and impartial way. We are committed to making sure FFI is used effectively and welcome challenge from customers who believe we are not acting in accordance with published policies.

We also want to make sure that FFI is not a barrier to waste operators seeking advice and guidance from us without fear of large invoices or triggering enforcement action. We will continue to make sure we have clear and available guidance to help waste operators comply with their responsibilities.

Charge management and other suggestions for proposal – feedback

Respondents provided information, some queried our approach to cost recovery and others made specific suggestions relating to how they thought the FFI should work:

“What mechanism is there for arbitration or challenge to such charges in these circumstances if believed to be unreasonable by the recipient.”

“Is there an independent appeals process?”

“What happens if the EA suspicions are later allayed, i.e. there is no requirement for intervention? What is the appeal mechanism where there is a view that the costs are not justified or the quantum is not justifiable? The mechanism to question and challenge a specific charge needs to be clearly set out and be readily available. A dispute process should also be implemented…”

“When fees are charged to an operator they should be clearly itemised so that an operator can understand what they are being charged for and to avoid disputes. A dispute process should also be implemented – for example if an exemption operator disagrees with the regulator’s assessment of non-compliance then they should not be charged until any discussions have been resolved.”

“…any new charges introduced would need to be transparent, proportionate to the risk and not excessive. Can you advise whether operators will be able to challenge excessive costs?”

“Ensure the process is transparent and that operators can challenge intervention costs if they believe they are disproportionate or incorrect.”

Charge management and other suggestions for proposal – our response

We welcome the views of respondents and recognise the need for having a transparent and fair process. We will make sure that our invoices are correct, timely and go to the correct payee. We will talk with operators about the need to pay before they receive a FFI invoice.

Whilst we acknowledge the necessity of having a method to challenge an FFI invoice, we will not enter disputes about the principle of recovering costs nor the hourly rate being charged. Specific queries about an invoice would be considered. In the first instance operators will be encouraged to talk with the lead officer of the intervention for their waste activity. Beyond that we will provide a clearly explained route to appeal or dispute an FFI invoice. Possible outcomes could include the invoice being upheld, reduced or cancelled depending on the outcome of the process. Undisputed areas of an invoice would remain payable within normal terms. If we are satisfied that everything has been completed to resolve the dispute and believe that further challenge is an attempt to prolong or subvert the FFI then the normal credit control process will continue.

As part of the implementation phase we will review whether our existing complaints procedure is the appropriate method for formally disputing an FFI invoice, as with other billing queries, or whether a new independent panel is required.

We acknowledge some comments were received on the need for an FFI cap, limiting how much we could invoice. Since FFI will be based on the actual time and effort spent in resolving waste operations at unauthorised sites there cannot be a minimum or maximum bill.

Waste fee for intervention – outcome and next steps

We will implement our FFI proposal in April 2026. We are implementing the charge so that we can continue to provide the service and the environmental protection from waste crime that is needed.

We have listened to and will act on the feedback, particularly around the need for transparency in the FFI and need for a clear and fair dispute process.