Agenda item

1. The item was introduced by Jamie Henderson, Cabinet Member for Environment, Coastal Regeneration and Public Health, who outlined the impact of fly?tipping on streets and rural areas. He highlighted the significant costs associated with clearance and disposal and the pressure placed on County and Borough Council budgets, as well as the impact on landowners, farmers and businesses.

2. Following questions and comments from Members, discussion covered the following:

a)    Mr Henderson assured the Committee that businesses were required to be licensed as waste carriers and pay for lawful disposal and that commercial waste should not be subsidised by Council taxpayers. He also explained that £345,000 was spent dealing with fly- tipping in 2025 in gate fees alone, increasing the case for investment in stronger enforcement activity. He suggested that in light of the current Lords review, it could be timely to seek assistance from Central Government to support enforcement and help struggling businesses.

b)    Matthew Smyth, Director for Environment and Waste, explained that commercial operators could use waste transfer stations at cost, but that expanding access would add non?statutory costs to Kent taxpayers. He also outlined that commercial waste volumes could be comparable to household waste, making limits on access impractical. He added that the booking system had reduced costs by £1.4 million and was supported by 96% of users.

c)    Mr Henderson agreed with a suggestion that clearer promotion of licensing requirements could support legal compliance and reduction in fly- tipping, citing the numbers of under- licensing among small companies.

d)    Mr Smyth highlighted that residents were legally responsible for ensuring their waste was disposed of correctly, even when using a third- party waste carrier. He therefore agreed that any educational campaign should target not only businesses, but also residents to raise awareness of their waste responsibilities.

e)    Mr Smyth acknowledged inconsistencies within a table in the report and assured the Committee the source would be reviewed and a correct table reissued.

f)     Lucy Miller, Business Innovation Manager, confirmed that there was currently no assistance available from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) for farmers or landowners affected by mass fly- tipping. However, this issue of clear up costs for farmers and private landowners was being considered as part of the ongoing House of Lords Inquiry, and Members would be kept updated as further information became available.

g)    Ms Miller elaborated that fly- tipping and enforcement was being widely considered at national level, through the House of Lords Inquiry. She outlined that the Environment Agency had published a 10-point action plan to address fly- tipping and illegal waste sites, including measures such as improved intelligence handling, greater transparency and community engagements. Further relevant links could be shared with Members outside of the Committee.

h)    Mr Henderson also encouraged Borough Councils to apply maximum penalties available to ensure a consistent approach across Kent and help prevent displacements of offenders between areas.

i)     Ms Miller reported that the Council had strengthened its working relationship with the Environment Agency over the past 18 months. She confirmed that the waste carrier registration system was being reviewed due to not being fit for purpose, roadside checks were taking place in Kent with partner agencies, and that encouraging greater consistency in fixed penalty notices was supported. She also raised concerns that court fines could be lower than fixed penalties, with undermined deterrence, and confirmed that the issue was being raised with DEFRA and the Environment Agency.

j)     Mr Smyth stated that differences in fly- tipping figures between districts largely reflected inconsistent reporting practices, as there was no single agreed definition of a fly- tip. While this made direct comparison difficult, he agreed to take further consideration on what differentiated Dover from other areas.

k)    Mr Henderson agreed to seek further information from the Environment Agency on numbers of enforcement activity over the previous 12 months and plans going forward. Ms Miller explained that many fly- tipping incidents could not be enforced due to a lack of evidence, meaning enforcement figures did not always correlate with reported incidents. She added that the number of prosecutions was comparable to other areas and that investigations could take between six and twelve months to conclude.

l)     Paul Webb, Cabinet Member for Integrated Children’s Services, welcomed the proposals for a multi- agency enforcement hub, highlighting that significant work was already underway to strengthen partnership working.

m)  Ms Miller explained that traders should provide householders with a waste transfer note detailing how waste was disposed of, although the current paper- based system was recognised as outdated and open to abuse. She advised that a national electronic waste- tracking system was expected to be introduced to improve transparency and compliance. She also assured Members that stronger sanctions, including action against company directors, driving license penalties and tougher enforcement against illegal waste sites were being considered nationally as part of the Environment Agency’s 10- point action plans. While progress was positive, it was acknowledged that implementation would take time and further detail could be provided to Cabinet Committee in future, if required.

n)    Mr Smyth clarified that the proposed hub was still at an early, exploratory stage and not yet a fully developed project. As a result, no timescale had been set, and further work would be needed before it could be progressed.

o)    Ms Miller stated that proposals to make it mandatory for any business who registers with Companies House to register as a waste carrier would need to be considered at a national level by DEFRA and the Environment Agency, rather than led by KCC. She highlighted limitations, as not all businesses were registered with Companies House, including sole traders and partnerships, but confirmed the suggestion could potentially be fed back to relevant national bodies.

p)    Mr Jones clarified that National Highways were responsible for fly?tipping on motorways, including on lay?bys, hard shoulders, and verge clearances, and this was managed through their maintenance contracts. Fly?tipping on A roads, however, fell under the responsibility of District and Borough Councils as the waste collection authorities. Other than two locations that were managed by independent contractors on behalf of National Highways, National Highways were responsible only for Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) roads in Kent.

q)    Ms Miller explained that deterrence activity was developed jointly with District and Borough councils. This included identifying fly?tipping hotspots through intelligence?led approaches and deploying appropriate enforcement and monitoring measures. She recognised that while cameras were one option, other operational and enforcement techniques were also used. It was added that effective deterrence relied on sharing intelligence with districts to target hotspots and applying proportionate interventions beyond signage alone.

r)     Mr Smyth clarified that camera funding and deployment responsibilities sat with District and Borough Councils, with KCC’s role in limited to facilitating coordination and information sharing rather than direct deployment.

s)    Mr Smyth explained that the Kent Resource Partnership (KRP) provided the main mechanism for standardising approaches and sharing best practice across Kent. The Partnership brought together waste officers from all 13 authorities and reported to a Members’ group of portfolio holders. It was also acknowledged that Members’ views on best practice could be raised with the KRP in future.

t)     Mr Henderson advised that communication with Central Government would take place after publication of the House of Lords’ report, with information then used to inform steps. He also outlined examples of modern approaches, including Maidstone’s use of AI and use of camera technology to tackle littering.

u)    Mr Henderson acknowledged that fly- tipping figures did not account for incidents on private land, where landowners disposed of waste at their own expense without reporting it. As a result, the true scale of the problem was likely under- reported, and potential value was recognised in enabling landowners and businesses to share this information.

3. The Chairman proposed to note the report and to make the following recommendations to the Cabinet Member for consideration:

i)             For KCC to promote waste carrier licenses for small and medium businesses.

ii)            To promote tradesperson licensing including the use of electronic tracking and informing the public on what they should expect in terms of information from tradespeople.

iii)           To encourage District and Borough councils to adopt consistent, maximised fines and messaging.

iv)           Request the Cabinet Member consider writing to the Environment Agency regarding licensing and businesses operating without appropriate licences.

v)            For there to be consideration of the implementation of a multi- agency hub.

vi)           Request the Cabinet Member consider writing to the relevant department with regard to getting consistent levels of fines in prosecutions to ensure fly?tipping is not treated as a business cost.

4. This was agreed by the Committee.

5. RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee note the report and make the following recommendations to the Cabinet Member for consideration:

i)             For KCC to promote waste carrier licenses for small and medium businesses.

ii)            To promote tradesperson licensing including the use of electronic tracking and informing the public on what they should expect in terms of information from tradespeople.

iii)           To encourage District and Borough councils to adopt consistent, maximised fines and messaging.

iv)           Request the Cabinet Member consider writing to the Environment Agency regarding licensing and businesses operating without appropriate licences.

v)            For there to be consideration of the implementation of a multi- agency hub.

vi)           Request the Cabinet Member consider writing to the relevant department with regard to getting consistent levels of fines in prosecutions to ensure fly?tipping is not treated as a business cost.