Fly tipping increased in Runnymede by over 30% during the last three years
The borough council say they're doing "what they can" to stop incidents
Runnymede Borough Council is losing its battle with flytippers, despite “doing what it can”, as illegal dumping increased by more than a third in the last three years. In 2023/24 there were 1,363 reports of flytipping in the borough. This jumped to 1,654 in 2024/25, and to 1,871 in 2025/26.
Worse, this year is on pace to beat that with 487 so far, putting it on track to reach 1,948. Against all that, there has been only one case in which a vehicle involved in flytipping has been seized, and 20 warning letters have been sent. The borough has said it is engaging in what it calls a multiagency response to tackle the scourge.
Runnymede Borough Council provides collection and enforcement services; the Surrey Environmental Partnership offers strategy and education, while Surrey Police assist with enforcement, particularly in vehicle-related investigations. Large-scale flytipping and hazardous waste are handled by the Environment Agency (EA).
The EA also deals with any reports containing evidence, witness details, or intelligence. The problem not only leaves a scar on the borough but costs taxpayers too; for example, an asbestos clearance is about £1,500 per flytip on top of disposal charges based on the scale of the waste.
The job is carried out by two council crews, one with an 18-tonne crane-mounted vehicle and the other a smaller six-and-a-half-tonne cage tipper, as it sets itself a target of clearing non-hazardous waste within five days. Officers told the October scrutiny committee: “The exception to this is hazardous waste.
“Unfortunately we are not licensed or in a position to remove hazardous items such as asbestos or oils and therefore a specialist contractor is required. Unfortunately hazardous waste contractors take longer than five working days, and the costs are very expensive.”
The investigation and enforcement of fly-tipping offences is inherently challenging, papers presented to the committee read, and offences are rarely witnessed, which limits opportunities for direct enforcement action. “Investigations can also be hindered by a reluctance on the part of witnesses and complainants to provide formal statements, which are often necessary to support evidential enquiries, including requests for keeper details from the DVLA.
“In some cases, vehicles used in offending are unregistered or linked to false names and addresses, further complicating offender identification. Whilst the use of signage and CCTV can assist in deterring and detecting offences, experience indicates that such measures may displace activity to alternative locations or beyond the coverage of surveillance equipment.
“The deployment and monitoring of mobile CCTV also requires a significant commitment of officer time and resources. Furthermore, many fly-tipping incidents do not contain evidential material capable of identifying those responsible, limiting opportunities for follow-up investigation.”
Officers said it was not straightforward to secure successful prosecutions given the high evidentiary bar and the limited resources available. They added: “I will ask officers if there is anything else that they think we could be doing but, with what we have presently, we are doing what we can to detect those offences and prosecute offenders.”
Committee chair, Councillor Shannon Saise-Marshall (Conservative: Chertsey Riverside, said: “You are telling me that reporting is getting better and better, although I can hardly believe that there are only 1,800 flytips in this borough. I suspect there are probably lots more just sitting there waiting.
She added: “Please don’t report on Facebook because this council does not do it that way; you actually have to go onto the council website or onto FixMyStreet. With that, I’m going to say ‘report, report, report’ because that is the only way we are going to fix fly-tipping.”