Stationary vehicle engine idling: summary of response

The Welsh Government recently consulted on proposed amendments to the fixed penalty amount applicable to the offence of stationary engine idling as defined within the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (Wales) Regulations 2003. 

The regulations give powers to Local authorities in Wales to issue fixed penalties to drivers of vehicles who they reasonably believed to have committed a stationary idling offence and have failed to comply with a request from a person authorised by the Local authority to stop running their vehicle engine whilst stationary on a public highway. The penalty amount is currently £20; if not paid within the period specified in the fixed penalty notice the penalty amount rises to £40. Where the driver has given notice requesting a hearing the penalty amount is not payable until after the hearing.

Action required

This document is for information only.

Further information and related documents

Large print, Braille and alternative language versions of this document are available on request.

Contact details

For further information:

Environmental Protection Division
Welsh Government
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ
Email: airqualitypolicy@gov.wales 

Additional copies

This summary of response and copies of all the consultation documentation are published in electronic form only and can be accessed on the Welsh Government’s website.

Link to the consultation documentation: Stationary vehicle engine idling

Stationary engine idling, the practice of leaving an engine running when a vehicle is not moving, is an unnecessary contributor to air pollution and noise. It also wastes fuel and increases costs to drivers.

Idling can be a particular concern in some locations, such as outside schools where children may be disproportionately exposed to vehicle emissions, and to residents regularly impacted by noise. 

The Welsh Government is proposing to undertake a range of actions to raise awareness of the potential harms of stationary engine idling and to discourage idling when vehicles are stopped. This may include, for example, national communication campaigns and guidance to Local authorities to develop their own local behaviour-change strategies. Our focus is on supporting and encouraging drivers, and we see penalties as a tool of last resort.

We also recognise that Local authorities need appropriate tools to take enforcement action when necessary. 

Under the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (Wales) Regulations 2003 (“the 2003 regulations”) a driver who is believed to be committing a stationary idling offence and who refuses to turn off their engine when required to do so by a person authorised by the Local authority may, on summary conviction, be liable for a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (i.e. a fine not exceeding £1000) or alternatively could be issued with a ‘Fixed Penalty Notice’ (FPN) for a penalty amount of £20. The penalty amount rises to £40 where the penalty is not paid within the period specified in the FPN. Where the recipient has given notice requesting a hearing the penalty amount is not payable until after the hearing.

This amount was set in legislation more than 20 years ago and has not increased with inflation in that time. The Welsh Government believes that the penalty amount of £20 insufficiently reflects the seriousness of the potential risk of pollution to public health and is too low to act as sufficient deterrence.

Through the consultation we welcomed views on proposals to amend existing legislation to enable Local authorities in Wales to set their own penalty levels from a range prescribed by Welsh Ministers. The consultation sought views on a proposed range of £50 to £100, which would bring penalty amounts for this offence more in line with penalties for other environmental offences.

The Welsh Government is committed to improving air quality and public health, especially for vulnerable groups such as children and the elderly. Stationary vehicle engine idling is a recognised contributor to local air pollution, particularly around schools, hospitals and busy urban areas, where idling can be a common occurrence.

From 5 August to 30 September 2025, we consulted on proposals to update the penalty regime for stationary engine idling offences.

We sought views on:

• the appropriate level for fixed penalties for idling offences;
• whether Local authorities should have flexibility to set penalties;
• penalty increase level when not paid within a specified period;
• where statutory guidance should be published to support Local authorities;
• the use of surplus income from penalties; and
• the proposed implementation timetable.

We received a total of 101 responses from members of the public, Local authorities, health and environmental organisations, and other interested parties. A consultation workshop was also held with Local authorities on 10 September 2025.

Responses to the consultation were polarised, with strong support from some for tougher penalties and strong opposition from others who see the proposals as unfair or unenforceable. There was broad consensus that enforcement and public awareness are more important than the penalty amount itself. Many respondents were concerned about the impact on low-income drivers and the need for fair, consistent application. Even among respondents who were critical of the proposals there was some recognition of the need to improve air quality, especially around schools and vulnerable populations, but also around bus stations and other locations where vehicles may commonly wait with their engines running. Many respondents want to see a clear, centralised approach with robust communication and education, and some suggested a phased or targeted rollout.

Question 1

To what extent do you agree or disagree that a lower penalty limit of £50 for the offence of stationary idling would be sufficient to deter drivers from leaving their engines running?

• Strongly agree: 13
  Agree: 19
  Neither agree or disagree: 13
  Disagree: 28
  Strongly disagree: 20 

Summary analysis

Views were split. Many respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that £50 is sufficient as a deterrent. A significant minority agreed, especially those who felt it was proportionate for a first offence. Some believed £50 is too low and not a real deterrent, suggesting £100–£300 as more effective. Attendees at the Local authority workshop raised that they supported an increase in penalties as the current Fixed Penalty Notice fine was too low to be viable to enforce.

Tiered fines for higher emissions vehicles were also suggested. Others argued that any penalty is unfair or unnecessary, with some calling for no fine at all. Many highlighted the need for practical enforcement and public awareness, not just higher fines. A recurring theme was that the deterrent effect depends more on the likelihood of enforcement than the penalty amount itself. A few noted that enforcement, not the penalty amount, is the real issue. Concerns were expressed about penalising low-income drivers and the need for education rather than fines. There was a suggestion that additional warnings should be given to drivers from lower income backgrounds. Another respondent suggested that no warning at all should be given before issuing a Fixed Penalty Notice when an offence has been committed as this wouldn’t apply in terms of other offences such as driving through a red traffic light.

Welsh Government response

The range of views reflects that penalty-setting is challenging. Opinions on the appropriate lower penalty amount varied with quite a number of respondents suggesting the proposed £50 penalty be increased by many multiples. 

The lower penalty amount will be reviewed in context of the comments raised, and to reflect the need to set penalties at a level which represents a deterrent but also avoids creating a financial burden on local authorities to administer. We want local authorities to be able to cost-effectively enforce offences where there is a need to do so, particularly where idling is frequently occurring in sensitive areas.

The concern of respondents that penalties should not unfairly penalise drivers from lower income backgrounds is understood. It is the view of the Welsh Government that all drivers have the opportunity to comply with the law and switch their engines off when asked. Therefore, drivers have opportunities to comply with the law and avoid a Fixed Penalty Notice altogether.

Question 2

To what extent do you agree or disagree that an upper penalty limit of £100 for the offence of stationary idling would provide a stronger deterrent whilst avoiding unfairly penalising drivers?

• Strongly agree: 21
• Agree: 22
• Neither agree or disagree: 11
• Disagree: 16
• Strongly disagree: 24

Summary analysis

Again, views were split. Some supported £100 as a stronger deterrent, while others argued for even higher penalties, especially near schools. Some respondents suggested up to £200–£500 as being a more suitable upper penalty limit. A minority felt £100 was excessive or unfair. Concerns were raised about the potential impact on low-income drivers. Some noted that the penalty levels would quickly become outdated due to inflation and should be reviewed in the future or set higher from the outset.

Welsh Government response

The Welsh Government wish to set a penalty range which is effective in reducing stationary idling without unfairly punishing drivers. Getting the balance right is a challenge. Furthermore, the penalty range must be wide enough to provide local authorities with opportunities to set penalty amounts in a way which reflects the circumstances of the offence. The penalty range will be reviewed in light of the comments made.

Question 3

To what extent do you agree or disagree that Local authorities should be able to determine an appropriate penalty amount from within the prescribed range to reflect local circumstances and the nature of offences?

• Strongly agree: 24
• Agree: 20
• Neither agree or disagree: 12
• Disagree: 14
• Strongly disagree: 24

Summary analysis

Opinion was divided. Some supported allowing Local authorities to set penalties to reflect local circumstances, while others preferred a standard, Wales-wide approach to avoid inconsistency and confusion, and to reduce bureaucracy. Suggestions included setting a fine structure, with one level for idling outside schools, another level for idling on residential streets, etc. It was also suggested that fines should be higher at night.

It was observed that the law needs to be clear and consistent, and be a real deterrent. Other views included there being a risk of creating a “postcode lottery” arising from local flexibility. Some respondents fear councils would use flexibility to raise revenue. A suggestion was made that two national penalty levels be set: one for standard areas and one for vulnerable areas. There was some interest in increased fines for repeat offenders. Concern was expressed over the potential use of third-party enforcement companies which could lead to fine-chasing.
Concern was also raised about whether Local authorities would have the necessary expertise and competency to correctly set fine levels.

Welsh Government response

A number of responses reflected the value of setting penalties to reflect the relative seriousness of the offence, and a number of suggestions were made as to how this could be applied.
We believe that local authority flexibility can provide a number of advantages over fixed penalty amounts, for instance by enabling penalties to be adjusted to reflect local challenges and to ensure that enforcement can be delivered in a way that is cost-effective to local authorities.
Further consideration will be given to how the enforcement regime can be administered in a way which supports local needs whilst reducing the potential for confusion and disparities across Wales.

Question 4

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the penalty amount should increase by 50% if not paid within a specified period?

• Strongly agree: 36
• Agree: 23
• Neither agree or disagree: 10
• Disagree: 6
• Strongly disagree: 19 

Summary analysis

Most respondents agreed with a 50% increase for late payment, seeing it as a standard practice and necessary to encourage prompt payment. Concerns were raised about the impact on low-income drivers and the potential for penalising those who may struggle to pay. There were calls for leniency or payment plans for those in financial hardship. Reference was made to the need for an independent appeals process as per other offences, such as parking infringements. As repeated elsewhere in respondents’ comments, the need to increase awareness of the offence was raised as important.

Welsh Government response

We remain committed to delivering a national communications campaign to raise awareness of the offence of stationary idling, and to alert drivers to the potential for higher penalties in the future. The proposed increment on non-payment of penalties has been proposed at 50% only which is lower than the 100% increment which applies to many Fixed Penalty Notice offences. This will be considered in light of the comments received around the need to avoid creating a financial burden on lower income drivers. We wish to ensure that we adopt an approach which tackles non-payment whilst avoiding, where possible, creating financial difficulties for drivers.

Question 5

To what extent do you agree or disagree that statutory guidance from the Welsh Government would be helpful to support Local authorities in determining appropriate penalties from within the prescribed penalty range?

• Strongly agree: 31
• Agree: 26
• Neither agree or disagree: 7
• Disagree: 7
• Strongly disagree: 20

Summary analysis

There was strong support for clear, consistent guidance from the Welsh Government to ensure fairness and clarity, though some felt this could add bureaucracy or reduce local autonomy. Importance was placed on clear definitions and training for Local authorities. Some felt that guidance would help ensure that penalties are equitable and not overly punitive. Some respondents wanted guidance to be advisory, and not mandatory. Local authority workshop attendees noted that guidance should contain helpful anti-idling information and provide clarity on the setting of penalty amounts.

Welsh Government response

A majority of respondents agreed that statutory guidance to local authorities would be valuable. The range of comments to the consultation have made it very clear that guidance will be very important in supporting local authorities in their enforcement duties and in delivering anti-idling initiatives more widely. Guidance clearly also has a role to play in helping to ensure that work to tackle idling across Wales is delivered in a coherent way which avoids confusion and large variations in policy across the country.

Question 6

To what extent do you agree or disagree that regulations should stipulate that any surplus income generated by Local authorities from stationary idling penalties should be used only for measures to help improve air quality?

• Strongly agree: 45
• Agree: 20
• Neither agree or disagree: 10
• Disagree: 5
• Strongly disagree: 14

Summary analysis

Most respondents supported ring-fencing surplus income from penalties for air quality improvement measures. Some suggested a broader remit for environmental or local services, or even to provide funding for NHS staff. Others suggested using funds for education and awareness campaigns. If funding was not ring-fenced, then some respondents felt this would be more attractive to Local authorities, who would be more likely to enforce penalties.

Transparency and public trust were identified as important concerns for respondents.

Welsh Government response

It is clear from the responses to this question that people welcome the potential use of surplus income for measures which can further tackle air pollution for the benefit of public health and the natural environment. We believe this would be a sensible approach and would avoid the use of surplus funds for measures which may not be helpful in achieving the policy aim to reduce exposure to polluting vehicle emissions. In the absence of ring-fencing, local authorities may utilise surplus funds for any local expenditure items and this open authorities up to criticism that idling enforcement was being treated as a source of revenue for wider ambitions.
Further consideration will be given to the definition of measures that may be funded through any surplus income arising from idling penalties.

Question 7

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed coming into force date of August 2026 for the regulations in order to allow time for an awareness-raising campaign?

• Strongly agree: 20
• Agree: 29
• Neither agree or disagree: 10
• Disagree: 15
• Strongly disagree: 19

Summary analysis

Many agreed this allowed time for awareness-raising. Some wanted a quicker rollout, noting the lead-in time seemed too long. Some opposed the policy altogether. Reference was made to the importance of robust communication and engagement, and the need to learn lessons from previous policy rollouts (e.g., 20mph speed limit).

Welsh Government response

Responses were quite split on this question. We appreciate the concern that there shouldn’t be any unnecessary delay to the commencement of any new regulations. Equally, we understand the need to ensure a sufficient communications campaign has been delivered before any changes to penalties.

We will review the proposed coming into force date as we develop and roll-out our communications campaign.

Question 8

Do you have any comments on the appraisal set out within the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment?

Summary analysis

Some believe the assessment underestimates the resource impact on Local authorities. There were calls for more evidence on effectiveness and cost-benefit. Suggestions were made to consider broader interventions (e.g. public transport, active travel).

Welsh Government response

We acknowledge the comments shared on the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment and will review the document as we develop our regulatory proposals.

Question 9

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed regulations will positively impact opportunities for people to use Welsh and ensure Welsh is treated equally to English?

• Strongly agree: 5
• Agree: 3
• Neither agree or disagree: 59
• Disagree: 4
• Strongly disagree: 18

Summary analysis

Most respondents were neutral, with some seeing this as irrelevant, but some pointed to the need for bilingual enforcement and communications. Some strongly disagreed, seeing it as unnecessary or politically motivated.

Welsh Government response

We will ensure that all messaging is delivered in both English and Welsh.

Local authorities already have duties, under the Welsh Language Act 1993, to ensure that public business and public services are delivered in a way which treats Welsh and English equally.

Question 10

We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any other relevant thoughts or comments on our proposals to set a penalty range through regulations to help tackle stationary idling, please provide them here. 

Summary analysis

There was strong support for action to protect air quality, especially around schools and vulnerable groups. Some respondents were sceptical of the policy, seeing it as a ‘cash grab’ or unnecessary Government intervention. Concern was raised about drivers of unreliable vehicles being penalised if their engines are idling, because their vehicle may not re-start when switched off, e.g. where the battery is flat. A small number of respondents were fundamentally opposed to the concept of any penalty for idling. Enforcement was a major concern, with some respondents expressing doubt that the law will be enforced effectively. Several respondents argued that resources would be better spent on improving public transport, active travel, or tackling other sources of pollution (e.g. industrial sites, tyre wear or poorly maintained vehicles).

There were calls for education and awareness, especially around schools. Some wanted exemptions for older vehicles or those without stop/start technology. Concerns about fairness were raised, especially for low-income and rural drivers. Some respondents were strongly opposed to any new penalties, seeing them as ‘nanny state’ policies.

The issue of enforcement on private land was raised, with respondents noting that many sensitive locations are located away from public roads. This issue was also raised during the Local authority workshop, where attendees also pointed to drive-through restaurants, taxi ranks, and shopping centres as locations where idling is very common. At the workshop it was also noted that Local authority fleet policies/driver handbooks have gaps in terms of preventing stationary idling. Workshop attendees were supportive of a national communications campaign with consistent messaging.

A question was raised about idling vehicles without a driver present, e.g. the driver has gone into a shop and left their vehicle running. Rail and marine pollution was also raised as a concern, and it was asked whether the anti-idling regime should also extend to these areas and not just road vehicles. A small number of respondents also felt that drivers of electric vehicles should also be required to switch off their vehicles when stationary.

Whatever approach may be taken through regulations, it was suggested that this should be reviewed with Local authorities after three to five years.

Welsh Government response

This question generated a diverse range of responses, and some very important points were raised.

We agree that enforcement should prioritise those areas where more vulnerable groups are likely to be exposed to unnecessary vehicle emissions, and where idling tends to be prevalent.

In terms of vehicles that aren’t functioning properly, for instance because of a flat battery, we do not view at this stage that an exception needs to be made in the regulations. This is also the case for vehicles without stop-start technology as all drivers are responsible for ensuring their engines are switched off when their vehicles are stationary. To avoid confusion, it should be noted that this does not apply where vehicles are idling because of traffic conditions.

We acknowledge the comments received about the importance of enforcement if penalties are going to have any deterrence effect. This is a matter which we will give further consideration to as we develop our policy in this area.

We are grateful to everyone who took the time to respond. The feedback will help shape our policy approach to tackling stationary idling, including potential regulations.