Construction, Demolition and Excavation
Waste
26. In its consultation paper, DEFRA raises the issue
of how to deal with the enormous quantities of construction, demolition
and excavation waste currently fly-tipped, quantities that would
sharply increase if the proposed house-building programme over
the next decade is realised. About 20% of all fly-tipped waste
falls within this category, and, given the declining number of
sites available for legitimate disposal of waste (especially for
contaminated waste, which is how a good deal of excavation waste
in particular is classified), and likely increases in waste from
this particular area of work, it will be a great and increasing
temptation for those involved in construction or demolition projects
to dump such wastes illegally in order to avoid often significant
costs. Indeed, 92% of all current hazardous construction waste
is deposited in land-fill sites.[28]
It is expected that there will be fewer than 15 landfill sites,
or part-sites, for the disposal of hazardous waste available from
this summer onwards, some of which will shortly be full—this
is down from the current number of 218 sites.[29]
27. The Agency, of course, is very concerned about
the likely increase in illegal waste dumping that will result
from the increase in house-building.[30]
Indeed, one reason for the very high rate of increase in fly-tipping
witnessed over the last few years in the south-east has been redevelopment,
which involves not just construction wastes but necessary demolition
and often excavation wastes also Certain categories of demolition
and excavation waste—particularly from brown-field sites—are
classified as hazardous waste, and with the ending of co-disposal
of hazardous with other waste streams in mid-July of this year
and the paucity of hazardous waste sites (none in the south-east
of England), it is more than likely that the illegal dumping of
these sorts of more dangerous waste will only increase. The Agency
estimates that at the moment businesses in London are saving themselves
in the order of £1 million each year by illegally dumping
such wastes.[31] In
its consultation paper, DEFRA itself recognises this problem.[32]
28. One of the principal difficulties with waste
from construction/demolition projects is that those in charge
of developing the sites often take no part in deciding the fate
of the resulting wastes. Dealing with waste from development
sites is frequently left to sub-contractors whose primary consideration
is not that wastes are dealt with legally but that they are dealt
with cheaply and speedily. The Agency considers it important that
developers be required by statute or by rigorous planning guidance
to produce a "site waste management plan" which would
identify the volume and type of material to be demolished and
excavated and would also demonstrate how off-site disposal would
be minimized and managed.[33]
As the Agency further suggests, the Duty of Care provisions of
the EPA 1990 (section 34) could also be amended so as to apply
to developers and others further up the construction and demolition
chain so that they are forced better to consider how wastes are
legally to be disposed of—and so that they—and not
just a waste carrier caught fly-tipping—can be prosecuted
if any illegal dumping of development wastes for which they are
responsible occurs.[34]
The amendment of duty of care
provisions for developers and those involved in development is
a common-sense proposal that we consider likely to be effective
in limiting the current illegal dumping of construction, excavation
and demolition wastes; and we look to the Government to see its
way to incorporating it into relevant regulations or statutory
guidance as soon as practicable.
29. The simple procedure of developers having seriously
to consider how and where they are to deal with their waste would
clearly begin to reduce the amount of waste that is left to sub-contractors
to get rid of easily and illegally. The additional fact that they,
the developers, and not just the man with a van dumping their
waste, may be prosecuted will no doubt help to focus less conscientious
minds. Given the proposals for
a massive expansion in development for housing in the south-east,
the inevitable increase in development wastes, and the contraction
of some of the principal historic means of their legal disposal,
it is vital that the Government put in place the proposals put
forward by the Agency in order to prevent a substantial increase
in fly-tipping in a part of the country already blighted by very
significant increases over the last few years.
30. The legal disposal of waste costs money, while
illegal dumping (unless prosecution results) is essentially free,
so it is unsurprising that this area of illegal activity is becoming
increasingly attractive to organised crime. The Agency reports
a worrying increase incidents of violence or threats of violence
faced by its staff, a rise of 25% since 2000 (128 reported cases
alone in the 12 months leading up to March 2004).[35]
It also reports that illegal dumping of waste is an increasingly
complex area of activity, with those responsible for it also conducting
other criminal activities, such a poaching or the stripping of
red diesel.[36] Offending
gangs range over local authority borders and often require the
Agency and local authorities to cooperate closely with each other
and also with the police authorities in order to track down and
successfully prosecute them. Against this background, the Agency's
pleas to Government for increased funding seem very reasonable.
It considers that to deal with the likely impact of increased
fly-tipping in the near future through the establishment of a
Fly-Tipping Abatement Force will require a start-up cost of £14
million, with an annual running cost thereafter of £6million.[37]
We re-iterate that if the Government
wishes to see fly-tipping reduced it must match its rhetoric with
resources and seriously consider agreeing to the Agency's requests
for greater financial support as a price clearly worth paying.
2 
