Government proposals to tackle fly-tipping fail to hit those responsible where it hurts – in the pocket. CPM reports…
“Fly-tipping is a highly visual stain on the countryside.” GEORGE HURRELL
By Andrew Watts
Of all the issues affecting farmers, few promote more widespread consternation than the illegal dumping of waste. For years farming and environmental groups have criticised government policy describing it as ‘inadequate’, and the burden on the landowner for clearing up waste dumped on private land as an ‘injustice’.
In its defence, the government would argue that the Waste Crime Action Plan published on 20 March gives local authorities and regulators greater power to tackle the problem, while an increase in funding for the Environment Agency should improve enforcement.
Campaigners would likely say these reforms are ‘well overdue’ given the number of offences continues to increase year-on-year (see box), while pointing out that they do nothing to assist the landowner for waste dumped on private land.
These measures form part of a longer series of changes dating back to 2015, while a review in 2018 recommended a more strategic approach that included improved waste tracking, better intelligence sharing between agencies, and tougher penalties.
More recently, fly-tipping has made the headlines after further measures were included under powers to tackle anti-social behaviour in the Crime and Policing Bill. Introduced in February 2025, the Bill is now in its final stages with Royal Assent likely before Parliament breaks for the summer recess.
To the disappointment of countryside campaigners, proposals tabled by the House of Lords to make convicted fly-tippers liable for clean up costs and any damage caused were rejected by ministers. As were proposals to make local authorities responsible for removing waste on private land and recover fees from offenders, on the grounds of cost.
While both the Waste Crime Action Plan and the passing of the Crime and Policing Bill will introduce measures that make it easier for police and the Environment Agency to tackle waste crime at source, it remains that unless a fly-tipper is caught and the clear-up costs recoverable on conviction, landowners will continue to pick up the cost.
In response, campaign groups – notably the Countryside Alliance, Country Land & Business Association (CLA), National Farmers Union (NFU), National Rural Crime Network and Clean Up Britain – said they’d continue to press government for further reform, warning that without change, farmers will remain the victims of other people’s crimes.
The CLA specifically, is calling for:
- The appointment of a national fly-tipping commissioner to co-ordinate agencies, monitor incidents on private land and benchmark enforcement performance
- The enforcement of fines for businesses and homeowners whose waste is found dumped
- More support for victims via a new permit scheme to allow farmers who didn’t cause or knowingly permit the fly-tipping to dispose of it at a waste disposal site free of charge
For Cambridgeshire farmer George Hurrell, fly-tipping is a near daily occurrence, whether that’s garden waste thrown over a fence or hedge, bags of household rubbish, or lorry loads of industrial waste.
Experience has taught him to tolerate the garden waste as it’s at least bio-degradable, and while bin bags of household rubbish are an inconvenience, they’re easily transported to the local waste recycling site. However, industrial waste is another matter.
At a cost of £8-10,000 per load to send to a licenced waste operator, and with little interest from either the local authority or the police, George believes there’s a feeling that enforcement authorities have abandoned farmers in an attempt to wash their hands of the problem.
“It’s a resource issue, and since no one is hurt when it’s committed, police attention is focussed elsewhere. For as long as the law makes it the landowner’s problem, the local authority has no interest either. It’s perhaps the only crime where the victim is, quite literally, left to clean up the mess,” says George.
Fly-tipping may be a national problem, but for those affected, it feels almost personal, he suggests. “We suffer more than some of our neighbours because we farm across several holdings, and being a suburban farm, most of our fields have road access.
“Our close proximity to both the A11 and M11 means we’re especially vulnerable to the commercial waste tipped by four-axle rigid-frame tippers.”
Over the years he’s come to identify the differing levels of sophistication demonstrated by those involved, realising that those tipping industrial waste are highly organised outfits.
“Individuals tipping household waste are often quite amateurish – we recently sifted through some bin bags deposited in a gateway and found a bank statement. After knocking on the door of the addressee, we were confronted with an elderly lady who admitted to paying the friend of her nephew to dispose of some rubbish. She was most embarrassed, and despite her confession, the police said there was an insufficient burden of proof to take the matter further.
“In contrast, the industrial waste, which is often trommel fines, is clearly being tipped by a waste operator seeking to avoid landfill charges. The nature of the tipping suggests sites aren’t selected at random.
“They never chose a muddy gateway for fear of getting stuck, often preferring the hard standing of a sugar beet pad. It’s always non-descript material meaning you can’t identify its source, and it always appears in the middle of the night when they’re least likely to be seen,” explains George.
Trommel fines are the material that come from the mechanical treatment of waste, appearing as soil but isn’t, he adds. “It has a consistency of wet sawdust, is often laced with plastic and smells horrible. It has to be sampled for asbestos before it can be cleared which adds to the bureaucracy and cost of disposal,” comments George.
For landfill purposes, fines are particles produced by a waste treatment process that involved an element of mechanical treatment, for example, trommelling, screening or soil washing. The landfill charge is calculated depending on the organic matter content (determined by the so-called Loss on Ignition (LOI) criteria) of the fines and the presence of other chemicals, such as gypsum.
If the fines meet the LOI criteria of 10% or less and is of a non-hazardous nature, it meets the HMRC’s test for the lower rate landfill tax of £3/t. If it doesn’t meet this test, the higher rate of £94.15/t applies.
“Given the landfill taxes involved, the appeal of a farmer’s field is perhaps understandable. You can’t help but wonder if the company you’re paying to take it away is the one that dumped it in the first place.”
Recovering the cost of disposal from the farm’s insurers is similarly frustrating. To the police, fly-tipping is a matter for the local authority, but unless the waste is blocking the highway or a public right of way such as a footpath, local authorities tend to regard it a private matter, explains George.
“To support an insurance claim, you first have to obtain a crime reference number from the police, but this can be tricky. They often seek to dismiss it as a matter for the council, so I’ve had to argue that by cutting the padlock from the gate, it qualifies as breaking and entering meaning a crime has been committed. While this defence has been successful, it shows that you have to have sound understanding of the law,” he raises.
In contrast, the Environment Agency has taken a more proactive approach, often seeking to reassure those affected that it’s working behind the scenes with local authorities and enforcement agencies to tackle the problem at source.
“Our local EA inspector has been very helpful, particularly with the commercial waste and it seems that it’s the only interested party. Ultimately though, the EA lacks the powers to act.”
George’s greatest frustration, however, rests not with the EA, the local council or the police, but with society. Fly-tipping, he says, is a reflection of the disregard that others have for the environment or private property.
“We live only a few miles from a household waste collection site and yet we routinely have to clear up what others can’t be bothered to dispose of responsibly.”
With several diversifications including a farm shop, dog walking paddock and an in-door dog rehabilitation pool – all which generate useful if not significant income for the farm – he’s also mindful of the impact that waste sitting in a gateway can have on the public’s perception of farmers.
Furthermore, changes to the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) which limit the payments available for a farm of the size run by George and his brother Jack at Newton Manor, mean there are likely to be more diversifications in future. While these will generate additional revenue, their appeal and consequent value, relies in part on the clean aesthetics of a well-kept environment.
“Fly-tipping is a highly visual stain on the countryside,” stresses George. “We’ve invested in several deterrents, mainly notices such as ‘CCTV in use’ and ‘private property’, as well as ensuring that gates are kept closed and secured with a chain and padlock, but these are often insufficient.
“The best you can hope for is that those responsible move on to a new area. It’s a sad situation to be in but it reflects the reality. We’re powerless to do anything about it and our attempts to persuade others to take it seriously are often met with indifference,” he concludes.
This article was taken from the latest issue of CPM. Read the article in full here.
For more articles like this, subscribe here.
Sign up for Crop Production Magazine’s FREE e-newsletter here.
