Annex 1: Detailed summary of consultation responses
Updated 1 July 2025
漏 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 鈥榓bout you鈥 and your consultation feedback
Within the online tool and response form, we included an 鈥榓bout you鈥 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 鈥 1,074
- responding on behalf of an organisation, group or trade association 鈥 715
- other 鈥 141
- no answer given 鈥 56
For the 715 responses sent on behalf of an organisation, group or trade association, we also asked how many people work there:聽
- sole trader 鈥 50
- fewer than 10 鈥 337
- 11 to 49 鈥 134
- 50 to 249 鈥 83
- 250 to 999 鈥 37
- more than 1,000 鈥 60
- no answer given 鈥 14
The main areas of business for these 715 responses sent on behalf of an organisation, group or trade association were:聽
- farming 鈥 236
- waste 鈥 119
- energy production 鈥 7
- radioactivity 鈥 6
- chemicals 鈥 10
- other 鈥 323
- no answer given 鈥 4
Respondents were asked how they found out about the consultation:
- from the Environment Agency 鈥 1,715
- from another organisation 鈥 57
- through an organisation, group or trade association you are a member of 鈥 32
- social media, for example, Facebook 鈥 11
- press article 鈥 8
- through a meeting you attended 鈥 8
- other 鈥 120
- no response given 鈥 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 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 if no relevant themes were identified.
Waste exemptions
Proposed registration and 鈥榗ommon on-farm鈥 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 鈥 77
- agree 鈥 423
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 493
- disagree 鈥 326
- strongly disagree 鈥 464
- do not know 鈥 65
- not applicable 鈥 27
- did not answer 鈥 111
Free text comments were submitted by 796 respondents to the consultation (40%), the most common themes were:
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榚conomic impact for customers鈥 (147); 鈥榗harge is high (56); 鈥榳ider economic issues鈥 (50); 鈥榠ncreased regulatory burden (36)
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (128); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (54); 鈥榣ink charge to risk or performance鈥 (13)
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (133); 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (80)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榣ikelihood of more unregulated activity鈥 (69); 鈥榗riminals should pay鈥 (38); 鈥榮eek other funding鈥 (23)
- protect the environment 鈥 鈥榬isks from increased illegal activity鈥 (43); 鈥榤ore enforcement needed鈥 (20)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榮ervice provided by EA鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 181 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 comments .
Question 2: Do you agree or disagree with the waste exemptions included within our proposed 鈥榗ommon on-farm鈥 compliance charge?
This question received more positive (821) than negative responses (298):
- strongly agree 鈥 107
- agree 鈥 714
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 413
- disagree 鈥 143
- strongly disagree 鈥 155
- do not know 鈥 79
- not applicable 鈥 238
- did not answer 鈥 137
Free text comments were submitted by 557 respondents to the consultation (28%), the most common themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (142); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (77)
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (152); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (16)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榚conomic impact for customers鈥 (18); 鈥榳ider economic issues鈥 (16); 鈥榠ncreased regulatory burden鈥 (10)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榦ur business approach
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥榮ervice provided by the EA鈥
There were 108 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 comments.
Question 3: Do you agree or disagree with our proposed 鈥榗ommon on-farm鈥 compliance charge?
This question received more negative (662) than positive responses (438).
- strongly agree 鈥 32
- agree 鈥 406
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 417
- disagree 鈥 281
- strongly disagree 鈥 381
- do not know 鈥 90
- not applicable 鈥 239
- did not answer 鈥 140
Free text comments were submitted by 763 respondents to the consultation (38%), the most common themes were:
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (190); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (21); 鈥榩roposal too complex鈥 (21)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榚conomic impact for customers鈥 (107); 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (52); 鈥榠ncreased regulatory burden鈥 (27); 鈥榳ider economic issues鈥 (10)
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (91); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (42)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榙oubt regarding our approach鈥 (50); 鈥榣ikelihood of more unregulated activity鈥 (32); 鈥榗riminals should pay鈥 (29)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榮ervice provided by EA
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
There were 108 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 47
- agree 鈥 484
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 607
- disagree 鈥 154
- strongly disagree 鈥 167
- do not know 鈥 182
- not applicable 鈥 193
- did not answer 鈥 152
Free text comments were submitted by 456 respondents to the consultation (23%), the main themes were:
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (180); 鈥榩roposal too complex鈥 (25)
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (60); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (21)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榚conomic impact for customers鈥 (17); 鈥榠ncreased regulatory burden鈥 (15)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榣ikelihood of more unregulated activity鈥 (9); 鈥榮eek other funding鈥 (9)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榮ervice provided by EA鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 105 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 36
- agree 鈥 458
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 622
- disagree 鈥 167
- strongly disagree 鈥 138
- do not know 鈥 184
- not applicable 鈥 217
- did not answer 鈥 164
Free text comments were submitted by 382 respondents to the consultation (19%), the main themes were:
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (138); 鈥榣ink charge to risk or performance鈥 (27); 鈥榞reen, climate or environmental considerations鈥 (21); 鈥榩roposal too complex鈥 (16)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榚conomic impact for customers鈥 (23); 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (15); 鈥榠ncreased regulatory burden鈥 (10); 鈥榰nderestimated economic impact鈥 (10)
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (39); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (15)
The following themes were identified less often:
-
鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
-
鈥榦ur business approach鈥
-
鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
-
鈥榦ther issues鈥
-
鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There weere104 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 37
- agree 鈥 522
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 631
- disagree 鈥 138
- strongly disagree 鈥 123
- do not know 鈥 192
- not applicable 鈥 181
- did not answer 鈥 162
Free text comments were submitted by 327 respondents to the consultation (16%), the main themes were:
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (108)
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (48); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (22)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榠mpact for customers鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
There were 117 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 57
- agree 鈥 477
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 586
- disagree 鈥 108
- strongly disagree 鈥 97
- do not know 鈥 181
- not applicable 鈥 328
- did not answer 鈥 152
Free text comments were submitted by 325 respondents to the consultation (16%), the main themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (74); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (25)
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (34); 鈥榞reen, climate or environmental considerations鈥 (17); 鈥榩roposal too complex鈥 (12); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (10)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榚conomic impact for customers鈥 (23)
- protect the environment 鈥 鈥榬isks from increased illegal activity鈥 (19)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 131 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 18
- agree 鈥 338
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 588
- disagree 鈥 263
- strongly disagree 鈥 288
- do not know 鈥 159
- not applicable 鈥 158
- did not answer 鈥 174
Free text comments were submitted by 501 respondents to the consultation (25%), the main themes were:
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (155); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (43); 鈥榩roposal too complex鈥 (21); 鈥榣ink charge to risk or performance鈥 (10)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (84); 鈥榳ider economic issues鈥 (37); 鈥榠ncreased regulatory burden (29); 鈥榚conomic impact for customers鈥 (25); 鈥榰nderestimated economic impact鈥 (12)
- protect the environment 鈥 鈥榬isks from increased illegal activity鈥 (54); 鈥榤ore enforcement needed鈥 (12); 鈥榤ore effective regulation needed鈥 (10)
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (41); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (22)
- service we provide 鈥 鈥榤ore transparency鈥 (27)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榮eek other funding鈥 (18); 鈥榙oubt regarding our approach鈥 (14)
- other issues 鈥 鈥榦ther鈥 (28)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 37 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 19
- agree 鈥 361
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 563
- disagree 鈥 282
- strongly disagree 鈥 300
- do not know 鈥 158
- not applicable 鈥 133
- did not answer 鈥 170
Free text comments were submitted by 454 respondents to the consultation (23%), the main themes were:
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (108); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (50); 鈥榩roposal too complex鈥; (16)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (63); 鈥榳ider economic issues鈥 (37); economic impact for customers鈥 (17); 鈥榠ncreased regulatory burden鈥 (11)
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (60); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (38)
- protect the environment 鈥 鈥榬isks from increased illegal activity鈥 (35); 鈥榤ore effective regulation needed鈥 (11)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榙oubt regarding our approach鈥 (17)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
There were 56 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 29
- agree 鈥 402
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 478
- disagree 鈥 324
- strongly disagree 鈥 407
- do not know 鈥 86
- not applicable 鈥 109
- did not answer 鈥 151
Free text comments were submitted by 632 respondents to the consultation (31%), the main themes were:
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榚conomic impact for customers鈥 (307); 鈥榰nderestimated economic impact鈥 (66); 鈥榳ider economic issues鈥 (38); 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (28); 鈥榠ncreased regulatory burden鈥 (23)
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (99); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (35); 鈥榩roposal too complex鈥 (14); 鈥榞reen, climate or environmental considerations鈥 (11)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榙oubt regarding our approach鈥 (74); 鈥榣ikelihood of more unregulated activity鈥 (43); 鈥榗riminals should pay鈥 (16)
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (37); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (24)
- service we provide 鈥 鈥榩oor or declining service鈥 (14); 鈥榠ncreased charge should improve our service鈥 (11)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 45 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥渃haritable purposes鈥 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 鈥 118
- agree 鈥 388
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 492
- disagree 鈥 269
- strongly disagree 鈥 220
- do not know 鈥 158
- not applicable 鈥 142
- did not answer 鈥 152
And 47 further responses aligning to our response form said:
- no, they should not pay anything 鈥 15
- yes, but they should pay a reduced charge 鈥 9
- yes, they should pay the same charges as other operators 鈥 10
- did not answer 鈥 13
Free text comments were submitted by 545 respondents to the consultation (27%), the main themes were:
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (430); all customers should pay charge (no exclusions)鈥 (38); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (21); 鈥榞reen, climate or environmental considerations鈥 (16)
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (33)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榠mpact for customers鈥
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 43 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 comments
Additional free text comments suggesting other options were submitted by 252 respondents to the consultation (13%), the main themes were:
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (93); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (65); 鈥榣ink charge to risk or performance鈥 (13)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榗riminals should pay鈥 (15); 鈥榙oubt regarding our approach鈥 (11)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榠mpact for customers鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥榮upport for proposal鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 63 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 104
- agree 鈥 559
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 618
- disagree 鈥 50
- strongly disagree 鈥 43
- do not know 鈥 276
- not applicable 鈥 168
- did not answer 鈥 168
Free text comments were submitted by 328 respondents to the consultation (16%), the main themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (142); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (26)
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (29); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (21); 鈥榣ink charge to risk or performance鈥 (14); 鈥榞reen, climate or environmental considerations鈥 (13)
- other issues 鈥 鈥榦ther鈥 (52)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (31)
- the consultation design 鈥 鈥榠nformation is confusing鈥 (33)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
There were 41 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (59); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (50); 鈥榣ink charge to risk or performance鈥 (21); 鈥榞reen, climate or environmental considerations鈥 (20)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
- 鈥榠mpact for customers鈥
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榮upport for proposal鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 36 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (51); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (51); 鈥榩roposal too complex鈥 (20); 鈥榣ink charge to risk or performance鈥 (16)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (48); 鈥榚conomic impact for customers鈥 (39); 鈥榠ncreased regulatory burden鈥 (21)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榣ikelihood of more unregulated activity鈥 (20); 鈥榗riminals should pay鈥 (16); 鈥榙oubt regarding our approach鈥 (13); 鈥榮eek other funding鈥 (11)
- protect the environment 鈥 鈥榬isks from increased illegal activity鈥 (20); 鈥榤ore effective regulation needed鈥 (12); 鈥榤ore enforcement needed鈥 (10)
- service we provide 鈥 鈥榠ncreased charge should improve our service鈥 (11); 鈥榤ore transparency鈥 (11)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榮upport for proposal鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 60 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 15
- agree 鈥 141
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 208
- disagree 鈥 68
- strongly disagree 鈥 63
- do not know 鈥 43
- not applicable 鈥 38
- did not answer 鈥 1,410
Free text comments were submitted by 150 respondents to the consultation (8%), the main themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (29); 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (29)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (23)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榙oubt regarding our approach鈥 (12)
- service we provide 鈥 鈥榤ore transparency鈥 (聽 23)
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (5); 鈥榓ll customers should pay charge (no exclusions)鈥 (5)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 18 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 22
- agree 鈥 117
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 173
- disagree 鈥 21
- strongly disagree 鈥 25
- do not know 鈥 47
- not applicable 鈥 149
- did not answer 鈥 1,432
Free text comments were submitted by 89 respondents to the consultation (4%), the main themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (22); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (11)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (12)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榗harge scheme design鈥
- the consultation design鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
There were 33 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 26
- agree 鈥 104
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 176
- disagree 鈥 18
- strongly disagree 鈥 22
- do not know 鈥 46
- not applicable 鈥 149
- did not answer 鈥 1,445
Free text comments were submitted by 65 respondents to the consultation (3%), the main themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (21)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榠mpact for customers鈥
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榗harge scheme design鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
There were 28 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 20
- agree 鈥 101
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 176
- disagree 鈥 20
- strongly disagree 鈥 29
- do not know 鈥 51
- not applicable 鈥 167
- did not answer 鈥 1,422
Free text comments were submitted by 71 respondents to the consultation (4%), the main themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (21)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榠mpact for customers鈥
- 鈥榗harge scheme design鈥
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 26 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 22
- agree 鈥 112
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 194
- disagree 鈥 34
- strongly disagree 鈥 37
- do not know 鈥 52
- not applicable 鈥 111
- did not answer 鈥 1,424
Free text comments were submitted by 79 respondents to the consultation (4%), the main themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (20); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (10)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (14)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榗harge scheme design鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
There were 17 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 20
- agree 鈥 95
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 189
- disagree 鈥 40
- strongly disagree 鈥 45
- do not know 鈥 52
- not applicable 鈥 110
- did not answer 鈥 1,435
Free text comments were submitted by 78 respondents to the consultation (4%), the main themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (19)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (22)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榗harge scheme design鈥
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
None of the comments were 鈥榥ot applicable鈥.
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 鈥 38
- agree 鈥 163
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 183
- disagree 鈥 48
- strongly disagree 鈥 58
- do not know 鈥 43
- not applicable 鈥 47
- did not answer 鈥 1,406
Free text comments were submitted by 129 respondents to the consultation (6%), the main themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (37); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (11)
- protect the environment 鈥 鈥榤ore effective regulation needed鈥 (16)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榗riminals should pay鈥 (8)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榠mpact for customers鈥
- 鈥榗harge scheme design鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
There were 24 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 17
- agree 鈥 104
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 218
- disagree 鈥 67
- strongly disagree 鈥 51
- do not know 鈥 59
- not applicable 鈥 60
- did not answer 鈥 1,410
Free text comments were submitted by 105 respondents to the consultation (5%), the main themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (18)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (17)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榣ikelihood of more unregulated activity鈥 (8)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榗harge scheme design鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
There were 20 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 21
- agree 鈥 76
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 199
- disagree 鈥 27
- strongly disagree 鈥 25
- do not know 鈥 56
- not applicable 鈥 162
- did not answer 鈥 1,420
Free text comments were submitted by 60 respondents to the consultation (3%), the main themes were:
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (15)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榠mpact for customers鈥
- 鈥榗harge scheme design鈥
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
There were 27 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 15
- agree 鈥 101
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 199
- disagree 鈥 63
- strongly disagree 鈥 44
- do not know 鈥 51
- not applicable 鈥 102
- did not answer 鈥 1,411
Free text comments were submitted by 101 respondents to the consultation (5%):
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (20)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (16)
- service we provide 鈥 鈥榩oor or declining service鈥 (9)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榗harge scheme design鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
None of the comments were 鈥榥ot applicable鈥.
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 鈥 21
- agree 鈥 120
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 191
- disagree 鈥 63
- strongly disagree 鈥 56
- do not know 鈥 52
- not applicable 鈥 75
- did not answer 鈥 1,408
Free text comments were submitted by 118 respondents to the consultation (6%), the main themes were:
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (37); 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (10)
- support for proposal 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (27); 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (16)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榠mpact for customers鈥
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
There were 17 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 鈥榤ore transparency鈥 (15)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榠mpact for customers鈥
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榮upport for proposal鈥
- 鈥榗harge scheme design鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
There were 25 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 6
- agree 鈥 63
- neither agree nor disagree 鈥 154
- disagree 鈥 10
- strongly disagree 鈥 14
- do not know 鈥 43
- not applicable 鈥 93
- did not answer 鈥 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 鈥 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (18)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榗harge scheme design鈥
- 鈥榯he consultation design鈥
- 鈥榠mpact for customers鈥
- 鈥榦ther issues鈥
- 鈥榮ervice we provide鈥
- 鈥榦ur business approach鈥
- 鈥榩rotect the environment鈥
There were 12 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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鈥
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 鈥 鈥榦ther suggestion for proposal鈥 (21); 鈥榩roposal too complex鈥 (21); 鈥榗harging and permitting policy鈥 (19); 鈥榓ll customers should pay charge (no exclusions)鈥 (15)
- our business approach 鈥 鈥榗riminals should pay鈥 (28); 鈥榣ikelihood of more unregulated activity鈥 (10); 鈥榙oubt regarding our approach鈥 (10)
- protect the environment 鈥 鈥榤ore effective regulation needed鈥 (27); 鈥榬isks from increased illegal activity鈥 (18)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榚conomic impact for customers鈥 (24); 鈥榗harge is high鈥 (18)
- service we provide 鈥 鈥榤ore transparency鈥 (13)
- the consultation design 鈥 鈥榠nsufficient information鈥 (11)
The following themes were identified less often:
- 鈥榮upport for proposal鈥
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
There were 37 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 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 鈥 鈥榗riminals should pay鈥 (2); 鈥榣ikelihood of more unregulated activity鈥 (2); 鈥榮eek other funding鈥 (2)
- impact for customers 鈥 鈥榚conomic impact for customers鈥 (6)
- Support for proposal 鈥 鈥榩artially agree with proposal鈥 (3); 鈥榓grees with proposal鈥 (2)
- charge scheme design 鈥 鈥榓ll customers should pay charge (no exclusions)鈥 (2)
- the consultation design 鈥 鈥榠nformation is confusing鈥 (2)
- protect the environment 鈥 鈥榤ore effective regulation needed鈥 (2)
The following theme was identified less often:
- 鈥檕ther issues鈥
There were 2 鈥榥ot applicable鈥 comments.