Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 20 December 2023

Introduction and background

The government believes that taxpayers deserve a comprehensive waste and recycling service.

Waste Disposal Authorities are required to provide residents with a place to dispose of their household waste, under Section 51 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 (the 1990 Act). These are usually Household Waste Recycling Centres (HWRCs). The HWRCs play an important role in helping people manage the waste they produce in a convenient and sustainable way. They also play an important role in supporting kerbside collections and boosting recycling.

It is important that HWRCs are accessible to residents in their area to help make sure waste is disposed of in a responsible way. This was why government made The Local Government (Prohibition of Charges at Household Waste Recycling Centres) (England) Order 2015 and The Local Authorities (Prohibition of Charging Residents to Deposit Household Waste) Order 2015 (2015 Orders). The 2015 orders prevent councils in England from charging residents to deposit household waste at HWRCs, so householders can dispose of household waste for free in their local area.

It has long been government policy that small amounts of DIY waste generated by householders should be classified as household waste, allowing it to be disposed of free of charge^{[footnote 1]}. However, both 2015 orders state that “household waste” has the same meaning as in section 75 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as read with regulation 3 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Controlled Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2012 (2012 Regulations).

In the 2012 regulations, “waste from construction or demolition works, including preparatory works” is classified as industrial waste. As a result, despite WRAP guidance to the contrary, some local authorities have continued to interpret this as including waste from DIY works a householder might undertake to maintain and enhance their property. This is in contrast to the local authorities that interpret it as meaning waste from the professional construction of buildings, their demolition and other associated activities. This means that householders face charges to dispose of DIY waste at HWRCs in some areas, while others do not.

In the Resources and Waste Strategy 2018, Defra committed to ensuring that charging arrangements in the 2012 regulations are clear, especially in relation to waste arising from small scale DIY construction activities carried out by ordinary householders with no specialist skills.

As government’s policy position on charging for DIY waste disposal has been clear for some time, on 11 April 2022 we launched a consultation on the technical details of how to clarify, in legislation, when construction waste should be treated as DIY waste and be free for disposal as household waste. We proposed that construction waste be classified as DIY waste when 4 criteria are met:

• the waste is produced by householders whilst carrying out small-scale construction or demolition works at their home
• the waste does not arise from activities that generate an income for the person who carried them out
• the waste is not produced on a regular basis requiring HWRC visits more frequently than once a week
• the volume of waste is no greater than 300 litres (based on the approximate boot size of a family car)

As part of the consultation, we also issued a call for evidence on the use of booking systems at HWRCs. We are keen to understand the current and expected future use of booking systems and whether their use is a barrier to HWRCs fulfilling their obligation to be available for the deposit of waste at all reasonable times.

The technical consultation and call for evidence ran for 12 weeks and closed on 4 July 2022.

New Burdens

The New Burdens Doctrine (NBD) seeks to ensure local government gets the support they need.

In the consultation document, we confirmed that the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) ministers had decided to waive the NBD in relation to the DIY waste disposal proposal. This is because the policy will ensure householders can dispose of DIY waste free of charge and supports the government’s wider strategy on environmental protection by removing a financial disincentive to dispose of waste properly. DLUHC decided that local authorities that currently charge householders to dispose of DIY waste will be required to absorb any associated costs.

Guidance has long been that councils should not be charging for the disposal of small-scale DIY waste. The government view is therefore that it would be an inappropriate use of taxpayer money to ‘reward’ councils for stopping activity which goes against existing guidance.

The updated NBD confirms that the guidance is applied at ministerial discretion.

Overview of respondents

There were 2,238 respondents to the consultation and the call for evidence. 2,220 were submitted via Citizen Space and a further 18 were submitted through email. Of the total respondents, 460 completed at least one question from the call for evidence.

2,226 respondents completed question 5 that asked which description best described them.

Most respondents, 79.7%, were classed as householders, while approximately 6% self-identified as local authorities. A small number of responses came from waste management groups, small businesses, academics and charity or community groups.

A list of organisations who completed the consultation is attached at annex A.

Option	Total	Percent
Local householder	1,775	79.7%
Individual	260	11.7%
Local Authority	127	5.7%
Other (please provide detail)	40	1.8%
Waste Management Company	9	0.4%
Business representative organisation or trade body	7	0.3%
Community group	3	0.1%
Charity or social enterprise	2	0.1%
Consultancy	2	0.1%
Academic or research	1	less than 0.1%
Total	2,226	100%

Table 1 shows how many individuals from each category responded to the consultation.

Under the option ‘other’, respondents listed identities which included, but were not limited to, councillors, landowner representatives, environmental activists, farmers, retired individuals and volunteers.

Consultation on preventing charges for DIY waste at household waste recycling centres (HWRCs)

We received a total of 2,238 responses to the consultation; 2,220 through the Citizen Space platform and a further 18 by email, although not all respondents answered all questions.

Questions 1 to 5 asked for details about the respondent, including if they were responding on behalf of an organisation, and whether they would like their response kept confidential.

Questions 6 to 9 asked specific questions on the technical detail of our proposal to amend legislation so that residents cannot be charged for disposing of DIY waste at their local HWRC.

We have included a summary of responses and government response by question.

Question 6: Do you agree or disagree with these technical principles when the government amends the 2012 regulations?

2,210 respondents answered this question. Of these, 90% agreed with the technical principals proposed and 10% disagreed. When the responses were disaggregated between local householders and local authorities, 93% of householders agreed with the technical principles, compared with 45% of local authorities. Only 7% of householders disagreed with the technical principles, compared with 55% of local authorities.

	Agree	Disagree	Total
Local householder or individual	1,877 (93%)	142 (7%)	2,019
Local Authority	55 (45%)	67 (55%)	112
Other	58 (84%)	11 (16%)	69
All respondents	1,990 (90%)	220 (10%)	2,210 (100%)

Table 2 shows how many respondents agreed and disagreed with proposed the technical principles. Respondents are grouped into householder or individual, local authority, and other.

Question 7

Given the government’s stated policy, do you agree or disagree with these tests on whether construction waste should be treated as DIY waste and classified as household waste, and should not be charged for when disposed of at a HWRC, when:

1. The waste is produced by householders whilst carrying out small-scale construction or demolition works at their home

	Agree	Disagree	Unsure	Total
Local householder or individual	1,994 (98%)	25 (1%)	13 (1%)	2,032
Local authority	67 (55%)	52 (42%)	4 (3%)	123
Other	59 (87%)	7 (10%)	2 (3%)	68
All respondents	2,120 (95%)	84 (4%)	19 (1%)	2,223 (100%)

Table 3 shows how many respondents agreed and disagreed with the criterion ‘the waste is produced by householders whilst carrying out small-scale construction or demolition works at their home’. Respondents are grouped into local householder or individual, local authority, and other.

Notably, local authorities were more opposed to the criterion than householders, who almost unanimously agreed. Of the 2,017 householders who responded, 98% agreed with this criterion. 1% disagreed and 1% said they were unsure.

123 people responded on behalf of a local authority. 55% of these agreed, 42% disagreed and 3% said they were unsure.

Of the 68 respondents who identified as neither a householder nor a local authority, 87% agreed, 10% disagreed and 3% said they were unsure.

2. The waste does not arise from activities that generate an income for the person who carried them out

	Agree	Disagree	Unsure	Total
Local householder or individual	1,827 (91%)	125 (6%)	65 (3%)	2,017
Local authority	67 (55%)	51 (41%)	5 (4%)	123
Other	52 (76%)	11 (16%)	5 (7%)	68
All respondents	1,946 (88%)	187 (8.5%)	75 (3.5%)	2,208 (100%)

Table 4 shows how many respondents agreed and disagreed with the criterion ‘the waste does not arise from activities that generate an income for the person who carried them out’. Respondents are grouped into local householder or individual, local authority, and other.

Local authorities were also more inclined to disagree with this criterion than householders. Of the 2,017 householders who responded, 91% agreed with this criterion. 6% disagreed and 3% said they were unsure.

Of the 123 local authorities who responded, 55% of these agreed, 41% disagreed and 4% said they were unsure.

Of the 68 respondents who identified as neither a householder nor a local authority, 76% agreed, 16% disagreed and 7% said they were unsure.

3. The waste is not produced on a regular basis requiring HWRC visits more frequently than once a week

	Agree	Disagree	Unsure	Total
Local householder or individual	1,651 (82%)	312 (15%)	55 (3%)	2,018
Local authority	60 (49%)	60 (49%)	3 (2%)	123
Other	47 (69%)	17 (25%)	4 (6%)	68
All respondents	1,758 (79.5%)	389 (17.5%)	62 (3%)	2,209 (100%)

Table 5 shows how many respondents agreed and disagreed with the criterion ‘the waste is not produced on a regular basis requiring HWRC visits more frequently than once a week’. Respondents are grouped into local householder or individual, local authority, and other.

A large majority of respondents agreed with this criterion, however the overall percentage of respondents who disagreed was notably higher than the first two criteria. There was an even split between the number of local authorities who agreed and disagreed here.

Of the 2,018 householders who responded, 82% agreed with this criterion. 15% disagreed and 3% said they were unsure.

Of the 123 local authorities who responded, 49% of these agreed, 49% disagreed and 2% said they were unsure.

Of the 68 respondents who identified as neither a householder nor a local authority, 69% agreed, 25% disagreed and 6% said they were unsure.

4. The volume of waste is no greater than 300L (based on the approximate boot size of a family car)

	Agree	Disagree	Unsure	Total
Local householder or individual	1,502 (75%)	430 (21%)	78 (4%)	2,010
Local authority	57 (46%)	58 (47%)	8 (7%)	123
Other	39 (57%)	23 (34%)	6 (9%)	68
All respondents	1,598 (73%)	511 (23%)	92 (4%)	2,201 (100%)

Table 6 shows how many respondents agreed and disagreed with the criterion ‘the volume of waste is no greater than 300L (based on the approximate boot size of a family car)’. Respondents are grouped into local householder or individual, local authority, and other.

This criterion received the highest level of disagreement from respondents. The majority of respondents still agreed it should be included but local authorities were fairly evenly split, with one more disagreeing than agreeing.

Of the 2,010 householders who responded, 75% agreed with this criterion, 21% disagreed and 4% said they were unsure.

Of the 123 local authorities who responded, 46% of these agreed, 47% disagreed and 7% said they were unsure.

Of the 68 respondents who identified as neither a householder nor a local authority, 57% agreed, 34% disagreed and 9% said they were unsure.

Government response to questions 6 and 7

Consultation responses showed strong agreement for amending legislation to ensure that householders are not charged for the disposal of DIY waste at HWRCs.

Most respondents agreed with the technical principles proposed, which took into consideration the:

• source of waste
• individual generating the waste
• volume and frequency of deposits at HWRCs

We noted that agreement with the technical principles was highest among householders while the view from local authorities was more balanced.

Across all respondents the criteria that appeared to raise most concern related to volume of waste and frequency of deposits. Some thought the criteria too generous while others thought them too restrictive. Local authorities provided information regarding the challenges they would face in implementing these changes.

We have listened to these concerns raised in response to the consultation and, as a result, have decided to amend 2 of the 4 criteria. We will restrict the allowable volume of waste to be deposited for free to two 50L rubble bags (or one bulky or fitted item no larger than 2,000mm by 750mm by 700mm, the approximate size of a bathtub or shower screen) per visit, but allow some flexibility on frequency of visits, allowing up to 4 visits per household over a 4-week period. A more detailed response on each criterion is provided below.

Question 8: If you have disagreed with the inclusion of any of the above criteria, please state why, indicating which part of the criteria you are referring to in your response.

In total, 712 people responded to this question. The majority highlighted issues with more than one of the criteria. But the criteria receiving most objections were the 300L limit and the once-weekly frequency, which received 419 and 327 objections respectively. In 54 cases it was unclear which criteria were being objected to.

1. The waste is produced by householders whilst carrying out small-scale construction or demolition works at their home

This criterion received 57 objections. The most common objection was that it would be challenging to determine the source of construction waste upon arrival at a HWRC. Several respondents, mostly local authorities, highlighted that ‘small-scale construction or demolition works’ was poorly defined and that this would create additional difficulty in determining whether the waste being disposed fitted the criterion. Other respondents, both householders and local authorities, objected to this criterion on the basis that it goes against the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP). Some local authorities highlighted that the 2018 Resources and Waste Strategy classify household waste as waste arising from small scale DIY construction activities carried out by ordinary householders with no specialist skills, but that the consultation makes no distinction between those with specialist skills and those without.

Government response to question 8 - criteria 1

We note the comments made regarding difficulties in determining the source of waste and the implication that those who don’t meet the criterion might exploit the system. We think this criterion is important so that it is clear who and what activities these changes are aimed towards. By providing limits on how much DIY waste can be disposed of for free we will limit the likelihood of abuse. It is also important to note that many HWRCs do not currently charge for the disposal of DIY waste by householders and so, for many, this is policy that is already implemented.

We also noted concerns that the term ‘small-scale’ is subjective. It has long been Defra policy that householders should be able to dispose of DIY waste for free but where large volumes of waste are generated (often where a tradesperson might be needed) costs may be applied for disposal. We use the term ‘small scale’ to help illustrate this policy position. By also having criteria that limits volumes we ensure large-scale works can still incur a charge. Lastly, some expressed fears that the PPP is not being adhered to. Our commitment to the PPP is one of the reasons that we do not propose that large-scale projects or large volumes should be covered by these changes. We must, however, take a proportionate approach to policy making. In this case we believe it important that disposal of waste from small DIY projects is affordable and that cost is not a barrier for householders using HWRCs.

2. The waste does not arise from activities that generate an income for the person who carried them out

This criterion received 95 objections. The main objection, which was raised both by householders and by local authorities, was that this would be challenging to determine upon arrival at an HWRC. It was also highlighted by householders and local authorities that this criterion could increase the risk of construction workers leaving waste with householders to dispose of on their behalf. Some respondents raised the question of whether this policy would apply to landlords renovating rental properties. Other respondents raised their belief that most fly-tipping is committed by tradespeople as opposed to householders, and that it would therefore make sense to also allow small-scale tradespeople the option to dispose of trade waste for free if reducing fly-tipping is the principle aim of this policy. Several respondents highlighted that this policy creates a financial advantage for able-bodied people, whilst not offering the same advantages to vulnerable individuals who may rely on family, friends or tradespeople to carry out small works on their homes.

Government response to question 8 - criteria 2

These proposals relate to householders who are undertaking DIY work on their primary residence. Defra has done a lot of work to set out clearly, in legislation and guidance, the responsibilities for management of waste. The waste duty of care code of practice already sets out guidance on how to meet waste duty of care requirements. It makes clear that where a tradesperson carries out work on a domestic property, they are responsible for the transport and disposal of that waste and the cost of waste disposal should be included in what they charge for the work. The 2012 regulations classify waste from a domestic property used in the course of a business for the provision of self-catering accommodation as commercial waste. It would therefore be inconsistent with the 2012 regulations for waste from landlord’s renovation activities to be treated as household waste.

It should be noted that HWRCs commonly have various restrictions in place for managing waste. We believe the proposed restrictions around free DIY waste disposal are proportionate to the policy aims. Where a householder is unable to get to a HWRC, there are other options for managing disposal of waste, although we recognise these likely involve charges.

3. The waste is not produced on a regular basis requiring HWRC visits more frequently than once a week

This criterion received 327 objections. The main objection is that the inflexibility of this criterion would not suit the average DIY project. Householders stated that they may require several trips to an HWRC in a short space of time, with the householder then not needing to attend the HWRC for several months. Local authorities highlighted that this would be challenging to enforce, with additional resource required to monitor the frequency of visits for those sites which do not already have automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) in place. Even with a monitoring system, local authorities noted that there would be ways for householders to exploit this criterion, for example making use of more than one car. Some local authorities also noted that if government decides to restrict the use of booking systems at HWRCs, this will make it difficult to monitor the frequency of visits by householders.

Government response to question 8 - criteria 3

We understand the concern raised by householders that the suggested frequency of one visit per week may not align with how householders manage small DIY projects. The implication being that greater flexibility would be desirable. We have balanced this against concerns around preventing abuse of the system and maintaining the focus of these changes on only small-scale projects by householders. We remain convinced that it is important to have a limit on the frequency that DIY waste can be brought to a HWRC free of charge. However, we have reconsidered this criterion based on the comments received and we will allow up to 4 visits per household over a 4-week period; this balances flexibility without increasing the overall visits. This will also be balanced by implementing a limit on quantity of waste per visit, which, as outlined below, will be restricted to two 50L rubble bags (or one bulky or fitted item no larger than 2,000mm by 750mm by 700mm, the approximate size of a bathtub or shower screen)

It should be noted that, where it can be accepted, a householder may still bring more construction waste from a DIY project and at a more regular frequency than stated in the criteria, but it would not meet the criteria to be DIY waste and therefore charges may be applied depending on local authority policy. We have also noted the points made regarding use of booking systems to monitor attendance at HWRCs. These comments will be considered further as part of our review into booking systems.

4. The volume of waste is no greater than 300L (based on the approximate boot size of a family car)

This criterion received 419 objections which varied between different stakeholder groups.

Householders objected on the basis that 300L was too restrictive, and that DIY projects often have the potential to produce more than 300L of waste. They highlighted that the 300L limit combined with the weekly limit was unfeasible, due to the possible need to dispose of more than 300L in one week.

Local authorities highlighted that the combination of the 300L limit and once-weekly frequency equated to a quantity which was is more likely to be produced by traders. The objection was that the overall yearly allowance, in their opinion, was significantly more than that which could be considered waste derived from small-scale works.

Both householders and local authorities raised the point that 300L is difficult to define, especially when considering bulky items such as bathtubs and shower basins. Both stakeholder groups also highlighted that ‘family car’ is variable, and therefore challenging to agree upon. Local authorities felt that disagreement over volume limit and car boot size could cause conflict on-site and would increase instances of abuse towards staff.

Government response to question 8 – criteria 4

The intention behind the changes to the legislation is that householders are not charged for small-scale DIY projects. It is not proposed that large-scale projects be in scope, and we continue to believe that a limit is necessary to prevent abuse of the system by traders who should be paying for waste disposal.

The 300L limit was proposed as it corresponds approximately to an average car boot of waste. However, due to the views and evidence provided by local authorities regarding the risk that construction workers could exploit these changes, as well as the desire to maintain the PPP, we have reconsidered the permissible quantity of waste per visit and will restrict this to two 50L rubble bags (or one bulky or fitted item no larger than 2,000mm by 750mm by 700mm, the approximate size of a bathtub or shower screen) per visit. We believe this strikes a balance between supporting householders where cost may be a barrier to disposing of DIY waste while managing other risks raised by local authorities.

Lastly, while some expressed the view that it would be difficult to monitor these criteria we believe it is important to recognise that many HWRCs already have various systems and restrictions in place for managing waste and these ordinarily require HWRC operatives to monitor and make judgements on use of a HWRC.

Question 9: Do you have any other views on the technical circumstances in which construction waste should be considered DIY waste and classified as household waste?

519 respondents provided a response to this question. Most respondents requested more clarity and consideration around included materials, particularly wood, paint and asbestos. Some respondents believed that this policy would reduce fly-tipping, whilst others highlighted that they did not think it would have an impact on fly-tipping levels. Respondents also highlighted that they thought this policy would be difficult to implement. Some believed there should be no limit on quantity of DIY waste.

Government response to question 9

We are grateful for the additional comments provided. It should be noted that the list of materials provided in the consultation was a non-exhaustive list provided to help illustrate the types of waste that could be expected to be part of DIY waste. It was not a definitive list intended for legislation. However, most materials that respondents felt should be included were already part of those expected to be in scope.

Some respondents particularly referenced paint and asbestos as requiring clarification. We therefore take the opportunity to reaffirm that some HWRCs will accept paint or asbestos but this depends on their permits or exemptions. Householders should therefore always check with their local authority to find out more information about what they are permitted to accept.

Lastly, we understand the concern raised by some that these proposals will not lead to a reduction in fly-tipping. The link between fly-tipping and HWRC services was explored in research which ASE conducted for Defra. Among other things it found that, according to local authority participants, the biggest infrastructure or services factor behind current fly-tipping levels was the introduction of charging at HWRCs. We therefore consider it sensible and fair to make sure that householders can dispose of their waste free of charge, including DIY waste from small-scale projects, so that there is no financial disincentive to dispose of waste responsibly.

We do, however, believe it is important to ensure there are some limitations to deposits of DIY waste to make sure that waste from tradespeople continues to be rightfully classified as industrial waste and that householders producing lots of construction waste may be required to pay for its disposal.

Call for evidence on booking systems at household waste recycling centres

We have included a summary of responses by question.

Question 10: Would you like to complete the call for evidence?

This question received 1,456 responses. 267 respondents (18%) answered ‘yes’, with the remaining 1,189 respondents (82%) answering ‘no’.

The below table shows a breakdown of the respondents who answered ‘yes’.

Option	Total	Percent
Local householder	154	57.6%
Individual	17	6.3%
Local authority	80	30%
Other (please provide detail)	7	2.6%
Waste Management Company	5	1.9%
Business Representative Organisation or Trade Body	3	1.1%
Consultancy	1	less than 1%
Total	267	100%

Table 7 shows the number of individuals from each category who responded ‘yes’ they would like to complete the call for evidence.

Question 11: Do you currently have an HWRC booking system in place?

This question received 460 responses. 58% answered ‘yes’, with the remaining 42% answering ‘no’.

84 respondents to this question self-identified as local authorities. Of these, 55% answered that they do have a booking system, and 45% answered that they do not.

Question 12: What type of booking system do you operate?

279 respondents answered this question. 68% responded selected the option ‘residents contact their local authority to book a specific slot’. 11% selected the option ‘residents used sites at certain times based on address, number plate etc’, and 17% selected the option ‘other’.

Of the 59 respondents who identified themselves as local authorities, 51% answered that residents contact them to book a specific slot, 12% answered that residents use sites at certain times based on their address or number plate, and 37% responded with ‘other’.

Responses indicated that the most common way for residents to contact their local authority to book a slot was online or by phone. Under ‘other’, the most frequent responses were:

• local authorities had a mix of sites with no universal approach
• booking systems which only applied to commercial waste
• permit systems and restricted access policies

Question 13: Please outline the key reasons why you have a booking system in place

This question received 137 responses, with each respondent having the option to outline multiple reasons. Over two-thirds of responses highlighted the key reason as being improved planning and efficiency.

Half of all responses mentioned reduced traffic congestion, and half mentioned COVID-19 restrictions being a key reason for having a booking system.

Many mentioned that a booking system helps them to ensure safe and correct use of facilities, and around one third of responses cited improved customer satisfaction. Some respondents reported that their booking system has improved recycling levels and reduced contamination.

Question 14: Please outline the key reasons why you do not have a booking system in place:

This question received 55 responses, with each respondent having the option to outline multiple reasons. The majority considered a booking system unnecessary or stated that they had an alternative system in place already. Other reasons were that booking systems could be an inconvenience or a barrier to customers.

Some respondents highlighted that they do not have enough resource to implement a booking system, or that the benefits of having a booking system would not outweigh the resource necessary to implement one.

Question 15: What are your future plans for the booking system?

This question received 62 responses.

Of the householders who responded, around half indicated that they liked the booking system and hoped it would be retained, whilst the other half hoped it would be removed as they viewed it as inconvenient.

Most local authorities responded that they plan to retain the booking system indefinitely and some responded that they were unsure. Just over a third responded ‘other’, going on to specify that:

• there was no universal approach for their HWRCs
• they were considering implementing one depending on the government’s position regarding DIY waste
• this question did not apply

Question 17: Please outline what other restrictions, if any, you impose on residents bringing waste to your HWRC? For example, limits on size, or on vehicles type can use.

There were 116 responses to this question altogether. The main restriction mentioned by respondents was vehicle restrictions of some type. Many responses cited use of a permit system, waste declaration form or reasonable usage policy. Other restrictions mentioned were restrictions on material type, residency restrictions, and date and/or time restrictions.

Question 18: Do you use any measures such as ANPR or similar approaches at your HWRCs?

This question received 108 responses. The majority responded ‘yes’, compared with around a third who answered ‘no’. A small number stated that they plan to or might implement ANPR in the future.

Some respondents cited having similar approaches in place, which included:

• requiring ID or proof of address
• a booking, permit or registration system including vehicle registration
• traffic counting loops or CCTV

Government response to the call for evidence on booking systems

We would like to thank all respondents for providing information in the call for evidence on the use of booking systems at HWRCs.

The government believes it is important that residents can dispose of their waste in a responsible and convenient manner. We note that, of the local authorities who use a booking system, most reported that the system was implemented to improve planning and efficiency at HWRCs, many also reported they had installed a booking system to manage congestion or had implemented a system in response to the COVID-19 pandemic when provision of the service had to be balanced with managing social distancing rules.

We note that there is a large proportion of respondents who anticipate their local authority will retain a booking system in the long-term and that some local authorities are considering their future implementation. We also note that where booking systems had not been implemented, most reported the reason was that it was not deemed necessary or that they had an alternative system in place. We recognise that there are different systems implemented by different local authorities for managing how HWRCs are used. It is also noted that some local authorities felt that a booking system would be necessary should they be required to monitor HWRCs visits by residents depositing DIY waste.

While noting all comments and documents received, we maintain that it is important to ensure booking systems are not perceived as an obstacle by residents. We have reviewed the evidence submitted but have not made any proposals regarding the implementation or use of booking systems. We will keep this under review and may reconsider policy in this area should evidence support it.

Next steps

We will amend the 2012 regulations to make clear where construction waste should be treated as DIY waste and to prevent local authorities charging for the disposal of DIY waste from small-scale projects by householders at HWRCs. We will use the 4 technical principles proposed to shape the legislative changes. However, we have reflected on the views from householders for flexibility and considered the risks raised by local authorities. We will amend the last two criteria on frequency of visits and volumes permitted. We will allow for free disposal of DIY waste up to two 50L rubble bags (or one bulky or fitted item no larger than 2,000mm by 750mm by 700mm, the approximate size of a bathtub or shower screen), at a frequency of 4 visits per household over a 4-week period.

December 2023 update: We’ve now amended legislation to reflect these changes and laid it to parliament in November 2023. We expect these changes to come into force on 31 December 2023, pending parliamentary procedure.

Booking systems

On the call for evidence on use of booking systems, we have noted information and evidence provided by local authorities. We intend to keep the use of booking systems and their impacts on the disposal of household waste under review.

Annex A

List of organisations and representative bodies that completed the consultation on preventing charges for DIY waste at household waste recycling centres:

• Alresford Hampshire residents
• Anne Janaway and Sons
• Ashford Borough Council
• Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport (ADEPT)
• Axil Integrated Services Ltd
• Bantworth Parish Council
• Bath and North East Somerset Council
• Beech Parish Council
• Blackburn with Darwen BC
• Blackwater and Hawley Town Council
• BMBC
• Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (BCP)
• Bramdean and Hinton Ampner Parish Council
• Brighton and Hove City Council
• Brompton Town Council
• Buckinghamshire Council
• Burghclere Parish Council
• Cambridgeshire County Council
• Canenco
• Canterbury City Council
• Central Bedfordshire Council
• Cheshire East Council
• Cheshire West and Chester Council
• City of Wakefield Council
• City of York Council
• CIWM
• Country Land and Business Association
• Commercial Services Group
• Cornwall council
• County Councils Network
• Cumbria County Council
• Derby city council
• Devon County Council
• Dorset Council
• Dudley MBC - Dudley, West Midlands
• Durham County Council
• East London Waste Authority
• East Meon Parish Council
• East Sussex County Council
• East Woodhay Parish Council
• Environmental Services Association
• Essex County Council
• Fangfoss with Bolton Parish Council
• FCC Environment
• Gloucestershire County Council
• Greater Manchester Combined Authority
• Hampshire County Council
• Hart District Council
• Hartlepool Borough Council
• Hartwith cum Winsley Parish Council
• Herefordshire Council
• Herefordshire County Council
• Hertfordshire county council
• Highclere Parish Council
• Hull City Council
• Hyndburn Borough Council
• Ipswich Borough Council
• Isle of Wight Council
• Keep Britain tidy
• Kent County Council
• LARAC
• LB Haringey
• Leicestershire County Council - Leicester, Leicestershire
• LGA
• Lindford Parish Council
• Littlestone residents Association
• Littleton and Harestock Parish Council
• London Borough of Bromley
• London Borough of Enfield
• London Borough of Hillingdon
• London Borough Of Hounslow
• London Borough of Richmond upon Thames
• London Borough of Sutton
• London Borough of Wandsworth
• London Forum of Amenity and Civic Societies
• Luton Council
• Medway Council
• Melchet Park and Plaitford Parish Council
• Merseyside Recycling and Waste Authority
• Middlesbrough Council
• National Farmers’ Union (England and Wales)
• Naunton Hall Farms
• NAWDO
• Neville Holmes
• New Alresford Town Council
• New Forest First Steps Reg. Charity
• Newcastle City Council
• Newtown Parish Council
• Norfolk County Council
• North London Waste Authority
• North Somerset Council
• North Tyneside Council
• North Yorkshire County Council
• Northumberland County Council
• Old Basing and Lychpit Parish Council
• Oxfordshire County Council
• Portsmouth City Council
• re3, a partnership of Bracknell Forest, Reading and Wokingham Borough Councils
• Redcar and Cleveland Council
• Residents of Cheriton, Sandgate and Hythe East County Council Division
• Rooksdown Parish Council
• Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
• Royal Yachting Association
• Rutland County Council
• Sherfield Park Parish Council
• Slough Borough Council
• Somerset Waste Partnership (comprising of Mendip District Council, Sedgemoor District Council, Somerset County Council, Somerset West and Taunton Council and South Somerset District Council)
• South Gloucestershire Council
• South London Waste Partnership
• South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse District Council’s
• South Tyne and Wear Waste Management Partnership
• Southampton City Council
• Spelthorne Borough Council
• Moorlands District Council
• Stockton Borough Council
• Stoke-on-Trent City Council
• SUEZ
• Suffolk County Council
• Surrey County Council
• Surrey Environment Partnership
• The Friends of Brickfields Country Park
• Torbay Council
• Veolia
• Verderers of the New Forest
• Walsall Council
• Warrington Borough Council
• Warwickshire Waste Partnership (comprising of the Waste Disposal Authority Warwickshire County Council and the Waste Collection Authorities - North Warwickshire Borough Council, Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council, Rugby Borough Council, Warwick District Council and Stratford On Avon District Council)
• Wellington Estate
• West Berkshire Council
• West End Parish Council
• West London Waste Authority
• West Sussex County Council
• Western Riverside Waste Authority
• Whitchurch Town Council
• Wiltshire Council
• Woodgreen parish council
• Worldham Parish Council

1. Hansard, 23 November 2016, PQ 54659: “In 2015 the government introduced legislation to prevent local authorities from charging their residents to dispose of household waste at household waste recycling centres. Recently updated guidance on these centres, prepared by the charity WRAP, classifies DIY waste as household waste if it results from work a householder would normally carry out. The government supports that position.”

   Defra, ‘Litter Strategy for England’, April 2017: “Government’s view is clear: DIY waste is classed as household waste if it results from work a householder would normally carry out” ↩