And the Environmental Services Association (ESA) advised against raising charges for businesses that were not ‘engaging in lax practices’ but were ‘trying to do the right thing’.
The two were responding to the Agency’s consultation on charges for 2015, which was launched in September and finished last week (November 20). It proposed a number of new and higher charges so that the Agency can recover the costs of its regulatory duties.
While the Agency confirmed it was not proposing an increase in charges on most of its schemes for 2015/16, amendments it would consider include;
- 2% increases for our EPR Installations, EPR Waste facilities and EPR Radioactive Substances Regulation (non nuclear) charges;
- Increasing the compliance band adjustment for those Waste facilities and Installations that continue to be in compliance Bands D, E and F for more than two years;
- Introducing a permit commencement charge to recover the additional costs we incur in the 12 month period immediately following the issuing of a new permit. This will apply to EPR Installations and Waste facilities. The new charge will be an additional 40% of the annual charge for the permit.
Impact
Justifying its proposals, the Environment Agency said that it is ‘aware’ of the potential impact its charges have on those it regulates and business as a whole.
The consultation reads: “We have reviewed our charges against the need to deliver our regulatory duties and have sought to minimise the increases to charges over the last four years. Over this period we maintained a high standard of service and delivered improvements such as issuing most permits within 13 weeks.”
The document adds: “Our efficiency programme over the past few years combined with our approach of not increasing baseline charges for most regimes has resulted in a 6% reduction in our charges in real terms across all our charging schemes. We have only proposed charge increases where we are failing to recover our costs fully.”
Feedback
In its feedback on the compliance band changes, UROC – the trade body representing the skip hire industry – argued that the measures were ‘unsatisfactory’ and ‘subjective’.
UROC added that it believed there was ‘no consistency’ in how operators are scored by Environment Agency officers – and questioned whether the motivation behind the scoring regime was ‘pecuniary’.
A spokesperson for UROC said: “It is our view that this proposed increase for ‘deemed’ poorly performing sites is draconian. The percentage increases are totally disproportionate and prima facie appear to simply punish operators rather than assist them to achieve a higher level of compliance.
“UROC believes any funds available to a small business should be spent on improvement measures to move out of long term low end Banding. We do not believe that by paying money over to the Agency, at such high rates, can or will actually achieve increased compliance.”
Landfill
ESA also issued a warning over the higher compliance band charge, which it said would have a ‘significant impact’ on operators, especially those engaged in landfill and biotreatment.
An ESA spokesperson said: “ESA recognises the Agency’s challenge in trying to target persistently poor performers. It should however try to distinguish between operators which engage in lax practices and those which are managing challenging sites and trying to do the right thing.
“At the very least the proposals should be phased in. Operators are likely already to have allocated expenditure for next year. The sudden introduction of new additional charges would lead to funds being diverted from other areas, such as site improvement.”
Meanwhile, the introduction of a 40% fee on top of an annual permit charge for new operators was more divisive.
Scrutiny
While UROC believed the move could potentially ‘stifle growth’ in the sector, ESA was more supportive of additional scrutiny for new operators.
ESA argued that this scrutiny should take the form of a ‘one year provisional permit subject to a higher charge’ rather than a blanket permit commencement charge. However, the rule should only apply to new permit holders.
ESA added: “Existing operators with a proven track record should however not be considered to carry the same level of risk and should therefore not be subject to a permit commencement charge. In other words, a commencement charge should apply to new permit holders but not new permits.”
Responses to the Environment Agency consultation are due to be published by March 2015.
Register for free to comment