Agency conducts ‘biggest ever’ review of charges
O
n 30th November, the Agency launched a consultation on the costs of its permits and
business charges. T e consultation covers many industry sectors, but from a waste point of view it mostly aff ects those seeking new environmental permits and permit variations. It also proposes additional charges for permits requiring detailed assessments, such as Fire Prevention Plans or Odour Management Plans.
According to the Agency, the new charges are designed to refl ect the amount of regulatory eff ort needed at a site, with lower-risk businesses charged less and higher-risk businesses charged more. It has involved a year of engagement with businesses and trade associations.
Launching the consultation, Neil Davies, director of Regulated Services at the Environment Agency said: “Our work to regulate industry protects and enhances the environment. T e proposed changes will mean that businesses pay for the full services they use rather than the public. T is is more fi nancially sustainable, will lead to a better service for businesses and long-term improvements to the environment.
“We have been engaging with trade associations over the last year while we were developing these proposals. T eir input into this process has been really valuable and I urge them to take part in the consultation.”
CHARGES
T e proposed charges are included in a number of documents alongside the consultation questions, making it hard to draw quick comparisons with existing costs. Upon close scrutiny the charges for permits for some waste sites look set to be as much as two or three times current levels, or more in some cases.
T e Agency gives one example of a standard rules permit (SR 2015 No4) for a waste transfer station for household, commercial and industrial waste. Under the current regime, the permit application fee is £1,630. Under the proposed changes, it is set to rise to £3,926 -
8
including an assessment for a Fire Prevention Plan. Commenting on the proposals, Phil Conran, director of consultancy 360 Environmental, warned that the higher charges might deter some operators from applying for a permit.
He said: “In our opinion, this consultation raises the question of whether these charges are simply to plug a funding gap or will lead to more eff ective enforcement, especially of non-compliant or illegal sites. T e risk of this scale of increase is that it will drive more operators - especially small ones - to try and operate illegally and therefore simply increase the problem.”
Mr Conran advised that operators talk to their local Environment Agency offi cers about what the changes could mean for them and to study the proposals very closely.
He said: “We would urge all those aff ected by EA fees to scrutinise this consultation very carefully well before the closing date.”
EXTENDED
Originally launched for a period of six weeks, the consultation was
extended in early December by two weeks until 26th January 2018, following concerns from
industry that there was insuffi cient time to review it - especially given its complex nature.
T is was welcomed by Jeremy Jacobs, who heads up the Organics Recycling Group at the Renewable Energy Association.
He said: “T is is a far-reaching and complex consultation, touching on all facets of the resource management industry. It is only right that industry is given suffi cient time to assess and understand the impact these proposed charges will have on the sector once they are implemented.”
Jenny Watts the CEO of UROC has urged members to review the proposals and make comments by either visiting the consultation section of the Environment Agency website or contacting UROC directly to discuss the impacts.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
