National litter and flytipping strategy: consultation analysis

Analysis report of responses to our consultation on a new national litter and flytipping strategy.

5. Impact assessments

The final questions in the consultation asked for respondents vies on next steps and on impact assessments. In this regard, respondents’ views were sought on:

Are there any proposals you think should be considered for the National Litter and Flytipping Strategy? Please indicate if there are any proposals that have not been outlined in this consultation document.

Comments were received from 427 respondents (44%). Many take the opportunity to reiterate actions that were noted earlier in the consultation, including a perceived need for higher monetary fines, litter picking as part of community work, and stronger national campaigns.

Those who suggest additional proposals largely comment on alternative sanctions such as vehicle impounding or adding points to individuals’ driving licence records. Some believe that surveillance of flytipping and littering hotspots should be implemented, for example by installing CCTV in these areas. Several suggest a need for better regulation and monitoring of those who have licences for waste disposal to ensure they are operating lawfully.

Consider additional punitive actions to fines, for example confiscate vehicles, tax investigations of individuals involved, additional fines to cover the cost of full restoration of the site and proper disposal. – Individual

Many advocate for better organised waste disposal and recycling centres and to make these more affordable (or free) and more accessible to the public. Several suggest financial support or incentives for those who are in disadvantaged positions or who are not able to dispose of their waste in a legal manner. Others suggest that better signposting of waste disposal or recycling centres is required.

Free disposal of waste for businesses. More regulations for Man with a Van companies. Trackers fitted to these business vans to keep track of movements and stop them flytipping. – Individual

Several mention the importance of education which is seen to have a positive impact to generally increase awareness and encourage behaviour change.

Several respondents, mainly organisations, comment on the need to have a consistent national approach to organising, recycling, and disposing of general household waste. Some state that flytipping and littering strategies should look at the bigger picture including packaging, and marine litter.

Additional actions each suggested by a small number of respondents include:

  • having more bins, particularly in strategic places (e.g. by bus stops),
  • change bin design to be more enclosed to reduce litter being spread by animals or wind,
  • more frequent bin collection,
  • involve famous faces and influencers in future campaigns, and
  • drive a change in packaging towards recyclable materials.

The consultation next asked:

Do you agree that the accompanying impact assessments (BRIA, EQIA, ICIA and FSDA) are an accurate representation of core issues and considerations?

Of the 978 respondents, 883 (90%) responded to this question, as set out below.

Figure 43 Agreement that the accompanying impact assessments are an accurate representation of the core issues

Almost three quarters (73%) are unable to provide a view on this question, while just over one in five (22%) agree. Around half (52%) of organisations are unsure, while almost all others agree. Support is highest among local authorities, with over four in five (82%) agreeing.

Of the 14 respondents who agree and provide comment, most note that the impact assessments demonstrate a good understanding of the core issues, and provide interesting, positive information. Most talk generally about all the impact assessments, but two specifically mention the ICIA and FSDA assessments as accurate representations. One organisation added that a full impact assessment will be necessary once any changes to enforcement, communication campaigns and infrastructure have been developed.

Of the 29 respondents who disagree and provide comment, most believe that more direct action to clear waste is needed, and that less resource should be spent on discussions and consultations.

Of those who answer “Do not know” and who comment, almost all either say they lack the time, knowledge or understanding to provide an informed opinion, while others (around 20) note they were unable to open the links within the consultation question.

I haven’t the specialist knowledge to critique but the report and supporting sources of information seem interesting and positive. – Individual

Respondents were then asked:

Do you agree with the recommendations and conclusions within the Strategic Environmental Assessment Report?

Of the 978 respondents, 828 (85%) responded to this question, as set out below.

Figure 44 Agreement with recommendations and conclusions of SEAR report

Over half (55%) are unable to provide a view, while just under two in five (39%) agree. Just under three in five (57%) organisations agree, while most others are unsure (38%). Support levels are highest among local authorities, with over four in five (82%) agreeing.

Of the 12 respondents who agree and provide comment, most believe the report to be a useful document and express hope the strategy will be successful. Two organisations mention the report should also build on previous research and findings including those from this consultation.

Of the 31 respondents who disagree and who provide comment, most would prefer to see direct action and implementation of sanctions to tackle flytipping and littering. Several mention the report appears vague in its suggestions and needs more concrete and concise recommendations.

Of the 75 respondents who answer “Maybe” and who comment, many say they have not read the report due to its length, complexity and/or a lack of time. Some say they are unable to comment on the report as it is outwith their expertise. Several do mention seeing the importance of resolving the issues and suggest having a more concise, accessible version that can be easily reviewed by the public.



Back to top