An Environment Agency waste crime operation in Lincolnshire has led to Boston Borough Council issuing six £300 fines and Lincolnshire Police issuing seven fines.

Operation Clean Sweep was a multi-agency operation led by the Environment Agency and involved Lincolnshire Police, British Transport Police, Boston Borough Council, East Lindsey District Council, and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA).

The operation took place on Thursday 6 March and involved roadside inspections in Boston and site visits in Skegness conducted by the Lincolnshire Environmental Crime Partnership.

Teams conducted roadside stops and inspections of vehicles capable of carrying waste, with 25 vehicles inspected in total.

Of the six vehicles found carrying waste, five were doing so unlawfully. The Environment Agency said some had no explanation for their final destination, while two were carrying hazardous waste insecurely.

Two waste sites were visited in Skegness with one site found to be breaching scrap metal legislation designed to prevent metal theft and the other identified as an illegal waste site.

Stuart Hoyle, Environment Agency Waste Crime Specialist, commented: “Large-scale waste crime and fly-tipping can only happen through the use of vehicles, which is why operations such as Clean Sweep are vital for tackling waste crime.

“Last week’s operation uncovered crime, prevented offences and gathered a wealth of intelligence to aid future investigations.”

Callum Butler, Environmental Portfolio Holder at Boston Borough Council, said tackling waste crime is a “priority” for the borough.

The post Environment Agency waste crime operation issues 13 fines appeared first on Circular Online.

Ahead of this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, Circular Online asks whether targeted legislation and regulation could be the missing link in accelerating the UK’s transition to a circular economy in the construction and textiles sectors.

Regulation is often seen as both a catalyst and a constraint. Yet, as the UK urgently strives toward a circular economy, particularly within the high-impact sectors of construction and textiles, thoughtful legislation may be exactly what is needed to drive transformative change.

The importance of this debate will be explored in depth at this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, with sessions highlighting regulatory innovation, collaboration, and best practices across industries. The theme for this year is around unleashing the power of design for circularity, focussing specifically on the built environment and textiles sectors – two of the most resource-intensive industries.

This focus resonates strongly with the pressing concerns detailed in recent industry analyses around the built environment and textile management, especially as climate targets loom large.

Construction and textiles, two distinctly different sectors, share remarkably similar hurdles. Both are significant contributors to carbon emissions and waste generation.

David Harris, CEO of Premier Modular, highlights that the construction sector alone accounts for approximately 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually, primarily due to waste. Similarly, textiles contribute vast amounts of global waste and pollution, driven by fast fashion and consumption trends.

However, both sectors also share opportunities through circular economy practices – specifically reuse, recycling, and modular design – though meaningful progress appears to remain stalled without regulatory guidance and incentives.

Regulation as a driver of circular change

The UK’s road to net-zero has shown measurable progress, with greenhouse gas emissions halved between 1990 and 2023. Yet, critical delays in policy implementation mean further steps are urgently needed, especially in areas like “embodied carbon” (the carbon footprint “built into” an item or structure) and waste management.

As detailed by Harris, initiatives such as the government’s Zero Avoidable Waste in Construction Route map and the England Trees Action Plan have laid valuable groundwork. However, these initiatives need more robust regulatory frameworks to drive meaningful behaviour change and scale up circular practices industry-wide.

Similarly, regulation has emerged as a crucial lever for change within the textile sector through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Jordan Girling, Head of EPR at WRAP, emphasises the viability of an EPR scheme for textiles in the UK, which could significantly boost domestic recycling infrastructure and shift producer behaviours towards circular design.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s recent report reinforces this, calling EPR a “necessary part” of addressing textile waste. This aligns with successful international examples, particularly France’s advanced EPR scheme, which includes incentives for repairing garments, thereby promoting a systemic shift away from disposable fashion.

The economic and environmental imperative

A comprehensive McKinsey and World Economic Forum study underscores the scale of opportunities available in circular construction.

The report suggests circular approaches could reduce construction emissions by up to 75% by 2050, saving as much as four gigatonnes of CO2 globally. Additionally, these circular practices could generate substantial financial benefits—up to $360 billion annually by mid-century.

Construction can learn significantly from textiles’ move towards EPR by adopting similar producer responsibility models.

Modular construction, highlighted by Harris, significantly reduces waste through precision manufacturing, controlled environments, and reusable components. Yet, without clear regulations, its widespread adoption remains limited.

Conversely, for textiles, EPR policies could push producers to design products with recycling, durability, and repair in mind from the outset, shifting consumer expectations and market dynamics fundamentally.

Legislative challenges and solutions

Despite evident benefits, introducing effective regulation in both sectors faces common barriers – political hesitancy, economic sensitivity, and gaps in data collection.

James Beard of Valpak highlights the UK textile industry’s particular barriers, such as poor-quality post-consumer textiles, underdeveloped recycling technologies, and a volatile global resale market.

Parallel challenges exist in construction, where Harris underscores the need for a staged approach to embodied carbon regulation, cautioning against hurried legislation that could harm industry competitiveness.

Addressing these barriers will require careful regulatory planning, significant investment in infrastructure, and fostering confidence in long-term circular initiatives.

Valerie Boiten of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation underscores this point, noting the essential role robust data plays in reassuring policymakers and industry stakeholders of the feasibility and impact of EPR schemes.

The paradox, Boiten argues, is that EPR itself may be the solution to the existing data gap, creating clearer metrics and transparency about product life cycles, waste streams, and recycling rates.

Lessons from leading practice

At the upcoming Festival of Circular Economy, scheduled sessions on day two (which is virtual to allow for global access) specifically address these critical regulatory and industry issues, spotlighting “Circularity in Construction: Scaling Up Innovation” and “Textiles and Fashion: Navigating the Circular Economy Transition.”

These sessions aim to offer practical insights, successful case studies, and collaborative solutions to address shared sectoral challenges.

Effective regulation could encourage adoption of innovative financial models in construction – like shifting from capital expenditure (CapEx) to operating expenditure (OpEx), as suggested by Harris, making renting or leasing modular structures financially attractive and environmentally beneficial.

For textiles, successful EPR implementation – exemplified by France’s evolution toward incentivising repair and reuse – is instructive.

This system not only recycles more efficiently but encourages businesses to fundamentally rethink their production and consumption models.

A circular future is possible

Realising a circular future for both construction and textiles is ambitious but achievable through targeted, evidence-based regulation. Such regulation must be designed to unlock innovation, drive market transformation, and overcome entrenched linear practices.

The opportunity to reshape these industries sustainably lies within reach – provided the UK can navigate the political, economic, and infrastructural challenges effectively.

The Festival of Circular Economy offers a critical platform to explore precisely these strategies, share experiences, and build consensus around ambitious, practical regulatory frameworks.

In conclusion, regulation is not merely an enforcement tool – if used properly, it can be the key to unlocking a genuinely circular economy, turning environmental ambition into everyday practice in two of the UK’s most impactful industries.

To explore these issues further and engage directly with experts and policymakers shaping the future of circularity, register for the Festival of Circular Economy today and join the conversation on building a sustainable tomorrow.

The post Can regulation unlock a circular future for construction & textiles? appeared first on Circular Online.

Ahead of this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, Circular Online asks whether targeted legislation and regulation could be the missing link in accelerating the UK’s transition to a circular economy in the construction and textiles sectors.

Regulation is often seen as both a catalyst and a constraint. Yet, as the UK urgently strives toward a circular economy, particularly within the high-impact sectors of construction and textiles, thoughtful legislation may be exactly what is needed to drive transformative change.

The importance of this debate will be explored in depth at this year’s Festival of Circular Economy, with sessions highlighting regulatory innovation, collaboration, and best practices across industries. The theme for this year is around unleashing the power of design for circularity, focussing specifically on the built environment and textiles sectors – two of the most resource-intensive industries.

This focus resonates strongly with the pressing concerns detailed in recent industry analyses around the built environment and textile management, especially as climate targets loom large.

Construction and textiles, two distinctly different sectors, share remarkably similar hurdles. Both are significant contributors to carbon emissions and waste generation.

David Harris, CEO of Premier Modular, highlights that the construction sector alone accounts for approximately 3.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually, primarily due to waste. Similarly, textiles contribute vast amounts of global waste and pollution, driven by fast fashion and consumption trends.

However, both sectors also share opportunities through circular economy practices – specifically reuse, recycling, and modular design – though meaningful progress appears to remain stalled without regulatory guidance and incentives.

Regulation as a driver of circular change

The UK’s road to net-zero has shown measurable progress, with greenhouse gas emissions halved between 1990 and 2023. Yet, critical delays in policy implementation mean further steps are urgently needed, especially in areas like “embodied carbon” (the carbon footprint “built into” an item or structure) and waste management.

As detailed by Harris, initiatives such as the government’s Zero Avoidable Waste in Construction Route map and the England Trees Action Plan have laid valuable groundwork. However, these initiatives need more robust regulatory frameworks to drive meaningful behaviour change and scale up circular practices industry-wide.

Similarly, regulation has emerged as a crucial lever for change within the textile sector through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Jordan Girling, Head of EPR at WRAP, emphasises the viability of an EPR scheme for textiles in the UK, which could significantly boost domestic recycling infrastructure and shift producer behaviours towards circular design.

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s recent report reinforces this, calling EPR a “necessary part” of addressing textile waste. This aligns with successful international examples, particularly France’s advanced EPR scheme, which includes incentives for repairing garments, thereby promoting a systemic shift away from disposable fashion.

The economic and environmental imperative

A comprehensive McKinsey and World Economic Forum study underscores the scale of opportunities available in circular construction.

The report suggests circular approaches could reduce construction emissions by up to 75% by 2050, saving as much as four gigatonnes of CO2 globally. Additionally, these circular practices could generate substantial financial benefits—up to $360 billion annually by mid-century.

Construction can learn significantly from textiles’ move towards EPR by adopting similar producer responsibility models.

Modular construction, highlighted by Harris, significantly reduces waste through precision manufacturing, controlled environments, and reusable components. Yet, without clear regulations, its widespread adoption remains limited.

Conversely, for textiles, EPR policies could push producers to design products with recycling, durability, and repair in mind from the outset, shifting consumer expectations and market dynamics fundamentally.

Legislative challenges and solutions

Despite evident benefits, introducing effective regulation in both sectors faces common barriers – political hesitancy, economic sensitivity, and gaps in data collection.

James Beard of Valpak highlights the UK textile industry’s particular barriers, such as poor-quality post-consumer textiles, underdeveloped recycling technologies, and a volatile global resale market.

Parallel challenges exist in construction, where Harris underscores the need for a staged approach to embodied carbon regulation, cautioning against hurried legislation that could harm industry competitiveness.

Addressing these barriers will require careful regulatory planning, significant investment in infrastructure, and fostering confidence in long-term circular initiatives.

Valerie Boiten of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation underscores this point, noting the essential role robust data plays in reassuring policymakers and industry stakeholders of the feasibility and impact of EPR schemes.

The paradox, Boiten argues, is that EPR itself may be the solution to the existing data gap, creating clearer metrics and transparency about product life cycles, waste streams, and recycling rates.

Lessons from leading practice

At the upcoming Festival of Circular Economy, scheduled sessions on day two (which is virtual to allow for global access) specifically address these critical regulatory and industry issues, spotlighting “Circularity in Construction: Scaling Up Innovation” and “Textiles and Fashion: Navigating the Circular Economy Transition.”

These sessions aim to offer practical insights, successful case studies, and collaborative solutions to address shared sectoral challenges.

Effective regulation could encourage adoption of innovative financial models in construction – like shifting from capital expenditure (CapEx) to operating expenditure (OpEx), as suggested by Harris, making renting or leasing modular structures financially attractive and environmentally beneficial.

For textiles, successful EPR implementation – exemplified by France’s evolution toward incentivising repair and reuse – is instructive.

This system not only recycles more efficiently but encourages businesses to fundamentally rethink their production and consumption models.

A circular future is possible

Realising a circular future for both construction and textiles is ambitious but achievable through targeted, evidence-based regulation. Such regulation must be designed to unlock innovation, drive market transformation, and overcome entrenched linear practices.

The opportunity to reshape these industries sustainably lies within reach – provided the UK can navigate the political, economic, and infrastructural challenges effectively.

The Festival of Circular Economy offers a critical platform to explore precisely these strategies, share experiences, and build consensus around ambitious, practical regulatory frameworks.

In conclusion, regulation is not merely an enforcement tool – if used properly, it can be the key to unlocking a genuinely circular economy, turning environmental ambition into everyday practice in two of the UK’s most impactful industries.

To explore these issues further and engage directly with experts and policymakers shaping the future of circularity, register for the Festival of Circular Economy today and join the conversation on building a sustainable tomorrow.

The post Can regulation unlock a circular future for construction & textiles? appeared first on Circular Online.

Each person who throws away food waste at lunch in their workplace could generate enough electricity every week to charge a mobile phone 13 times, a poll of 1,000 office workers has found.

The research, commissioned by UK waste management company Biffa, found that despite people taking actions to reduce their food waste at lunch, half of respondents said they throw away part of their lunch in their workplace each week.

The main reasons for throwing away food at lunch was as a result of inedible food waste, such as banana skins or eggshells (45%), busy schedules or plans changing (30%), poor food quality (28%), standard portion sizes too large (25%), and overordering (15%).

The findings come ahead of the forthcoming Simpler Recycling legislation where all businesses in England with 10 or more full-time employees will have to separate plastic, paper, card, glass, metals and food waste from general waste from 31 March 2025 or risk a fine.

76% of people who eat lunch in their workplace are still unaware of the Simpler Recycling scheme.

Commenting on the survey, Maxine Mayhew, Chief Operating Officer, Biffa Collections and Specialist Services at Biffa, said: “It’s clear from our research that there is an urgent need for businesses to improve food waste recycling ahead of Simpler Recycling, but wider awareness and education is also vital.

“By making small changes, we can have an important positive impact on the environment and support a more sustainable future.”

The research also found that 18% of people are dissatisfied with their current recycling options at work, with four in ten not even having a separate food waste bin in their workplace.

The post Office workers throw away enough food waste per week to charge a mobile phone 13 times appeared first on Circular Online.

25% of fashion retailers in the UK and US say they have “limited or no visibility” of textile items in factories and distribution centres.

The report by Avery Dennison is based on a survey of 250 senior fashion retail supply chain decison makers in the UK and US and found many were limited in item-level visibility.

The research also revealed that their supply chain is “highly problematic with regular disruptions” for 30% of respondents, while only 22% categorised it as “efficient and responsive”.

The Boosting Margins – The Power of Enhanced Fashion Supply Chain Visibility report found that 61% of the smaller companies, those with annual revenue between $1m and $9.99m, feel they have full visibility.

The research split the companies surveyed into six different revenue categories. Larger companies appear to be impacted the most by a lack of visibility, with 44% of firms with annual revenue above $1bn believing they have a complete view.

Full visibility was found to be most challenging for medium-sized retailers with only 11% of the $250m-$499m revenue cohort saying they had achieved this. Only six out of the 250 companies surveyed had “no visibility”.

50% of those surveyed said their company has “visibility into most items”.

Delia Glover, vice president of product, innovation, and solutions development at Avery Dennison, commented: “Trying to operate without clear visibility into your supply chain – essentially operating in a supply chain fog – makes it impossible to track the movement of inventory and deploy data analytics to reduce waste.”

The research also asked the decision makers to select up to four challenges they face due to a lack of item-level visibility in their supply chain.

Almost 30% cited last-minute changes to garment labelling, which rose to 42% for firms in the $500m and $999.99m revenue size bracket.

26% selected identifying supply chain disruptions in real time, 25% selected reduced agility in diverting orders to alternative suppliers or destinations, and 25% selected inability to meet compliance requirements on materials traceability.

The post 25% of US & UK fashion retailers have limited visibility of items appeared first on Circular Online.

25% of fashion retailers in the UK and US say they have “limited or no visibility” of textile items in factories and distribution centres.

The report by Avery Dennison is based on a survey of 250 senior fashion retail supply chain decison makers in the UK and US and found many were limited in item-level visibility.

The research also revealed that their supply chain is “highly problematic with regular disruptions” for 30% of respondents, while only 22% categorised it as “efficient and responsive”.

The Boosting Margins – The Power of Enhanced Fashion Supply Chain Visibility report found that 61% of the smaller companies, those with annual revenue between $1m and $9.99m, feel they have full visibility.

The research split the companies surveyed into six different revenue categories. Larger companies appear to be impacted the most by a lack of visibility, with 44% of firms with annual revenue above $1bn believing they have a complete view.

Full visibility was found to be most challenging for medium-sized retailers with only 11% of the $250m-$499m revenue cohort saying they had achieved this. Only six out of the 250 companies surveyed had “no visibility”.

50% of those surveyed said their company has “visibility into most items”.

Delia Glover, vice president of product, innovation, and solutions development at Avery Dennison, commented: “Trying to operate without clear visibility into your supply chain – essentially operating in a supply chain fog – makes it impossible to track the movement of inventory and deploy data analytics to reduce waste.”

The research also asked the decision makers to select up to four challenges they face due to a lack of item-level visibility in their supply chain.

Almost 30% cited last-minute changes to garment labelling, which rose to 42% for firms in the $500m and $999.99m revenue size bracket.

26% selected identifying supply chain disruptions in real time, 25% selected reduced agility in diverting orders to alternative suppliers or destinations, and 25% selected inability to meet compliance requirements on materials traceability.

The post 25% of US & UK fashion retailers have limited visibility of items appeared first on Circular Online.

Neil Grundon, Chairman of Grundon Waste Management, puts forward his views on plans to bring Energy-from-Waste facilities into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme.

Every now and then it is important to look back before we go forward. There is not much sense in repeating the mistakes of the past in the rush towards a noble goal.

I am talking about the UK Government’s plans to bring the Energy-from-Waste (EfW) sector into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). It reminds me of when the Landfill Tax was introduced nearly 30 years ago – more of which later.

In order for the EfW and ETS scheme to move forward, operators would have to measure the amount of anthropogenic CO2 that exits the EfW stacks, with the samples used to work out how much we pay to buy carbon credits.

It is suggested (among other benefits) that doing so will help to drive behavioural change amongst waste producers, including reducing the volume of plastics in waste.

I am a big fan of measuring, monitoring and reporting – and see it as quite exciting. Indeed, we are already collecting this data at our Lakeside EfW facility. What worries me is how the sampling and testing process will be managed.

I fail to see how the industry can accurately and fairly, without challenge, measure and calculate an individual waste producer’s fossil carbon contribution. What we can do, however, is use that data to drive change in the composition of waste.

Being able to measure those anthropogenic CO2 statistics and knowing how much fossil fuel carbon is going up the chimney gives us a strong platform to press for the removal of certain types of plastics.

If we made fewer things out of fossil fuels and instead used biofuel-based plastics, the majority of emissions become biogenic. At that point, we hand over to the nascent and ever-developing technology that is carbon capture and storage (CCS).

But I’m probably getting ahead of myself. One of my main concerns about the ETS proposal is simply that it is overcomplicated. It would be much more straightforward to charge us an emissions tax based on the data collected – we don’t need to be trading carbon credits.

The chances of the scheme involving something sensible, workable, simple and chargeable, that ends up improving the environment and the economy is anyone’s guess.

We only have to look back at the impact of the Landfill Tax to consider lessons that could have been learned.

Like most taxes, it was mainly introduced for political rather than practical reasons, as politicians from all parties found their in-trays filling almost as fast as the landfills their constituents were complaining about.

The Landfill Tax solved a few things all at once. Landfill became, along with alcohol and cigarettes, a “sin” and taxed accordingly with the “polluter” picking up the bill.

Politicians were then exonerated as the cause of the “sin”, and a clever tweak to the legislation allowed a proportion of the tax to be used locally by the landfill operator or environmental body for environmental causes.

The tax was easy to understand and apply to customers whilst being set at a level where it was easier to pay rather than change behaviour. In the early years, all it resulted in for the waste industry, apart from a few first movers building recycling plants, was a large capital expenditure on weighbridges.

This all changed when Labour came into power, the tax escalated quickly, along with fraud by certain elements of the industry.

Some sort of trading scheme was established, which only local authorities seemed to understand; and councils, fearing escalating costs and a public hostile to the most sensible alternative to landfill (namely advanced moving grate incinerators with energy recovery), quickly signed off on multi-billion pound white elephant Mechanical biological treatment (MBT) plants that residents are still paying for in 2025.

Fast forward to today and the latest government bête noir is combustion of any kind (unless it is wood pellets from America) in case it emits CO2.

That is fair enough unless you have a job to do. Namely, disposing of all the waste that cannot now go to landfills because they are not there anymore.

It feels like a never-ending roundabout from which there is no escape.

The post Grundon: Testing times for Energy-for-Waste operators appeared first on Circular Online.

West Midlands Fire Service (WMFS) is urging residents in Birmingham to take extra care when storing and disposing of waste as Unite members vote to extend strike action.

Unite the Union said the dispute is over Birmingham City Council’s decision to “downgrade” Waste Recycling and Collection Officer (WRCO) roles.

On average, Unite said staff performing the “safety-critical” WRCO role will lose around £8,000 a year under the plans.

Birmingham City Council disputed Unite and said its whole team is accountable for working in a safe and responsible way.

An official in the Council told Circular Online that claims that 150 people could lose £8,000 a year in pay are “incorrect”.

They said that the number of staff that could lose the maximum amount (just over £6,000) is 17 people and they will have “pay protection” for six months in line with council policy.

The only way this dispute will end is by halting the brutal and unnecessary attacks on our members’ pay.

A spokesperson for the Council said: “To the small number of workers whose wages are impacted ongoing by the changes to the service (of whom there are now only 40) we have already offered alternatives, including highly valuable LGV Driver Training for career progression and pay, and other roles in the council equivalent to their former roles.”

WMFS said the industrial action has led to rubbish piling up in some areas, increasing fire risks, particularly around high-rise buildings and care homes.

The Fire Service said it is working collaboratively with Birmingham City Council and that they are prioritising collections from these locations, including residents.

Unite accuses Council of using “unlawful labour”

The industrial action may now continue into the summer after nearly 400 workers voted to extend the strike over, what Unite called, Birmingham City Council’s use of temporary labour to “undermine” their industrial action.

Unite is calling on the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, which is part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to take action against Birmingham City Council.

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham accused the council of the “disgraceful use of unlawful labour” to try and break the strike.

“The only way this dispute will end is by halting the brutal and unnecessary attacks on our members’ pay,” Graham said.

A spokesperson for Birmingham City Council refuted the claim that agency workers have been carrying out work normally undertaken by striking workers.

“We continue to deploy the same number of agency workers on days of action as we would on any normal working days,” the spokesperson told Circular Online.

“The Council would rather not have to overly use agency staff, however, to maintain a service to residents, even when there isn’t a strike, we have to.”

The post Fire Service issues warning over Birmingham bin strikes appeared first on Circular Online.

Three defendants have been ordered to pay fines, victim surcharges and prosecution costs of more than £75,000 for their involvement in an illegal waste site in Northamptonshire.

The defendants were sentenced on 27 February at Northampton Magistrates’ Court for waste offences at Mill Farm near Kettering.

The Environment Agency said 34,000 tonnes of waste was stored at the site with large quantities of mixed waste piled over 10 metres high.

The Environment Agency said officers investigated the site in Great Cransley that David Goodjohn, 64, and his company, Green Infrastructure Ltd, operated without an environmental permit. They have been ordered to pay almost £32,000.

We take illegal waste activity very seriously and will not hesitate to disrupt activity and prosecute those responsible.

The third defendant, Storefield Aggregates, failed to comply with the waste duty of care by sending more than 24,000 tonnes of waste to the site between 2019 and 2021. It was ordered to pay more than £43,000.

Environment Agency Manager Yvonne Daly said: “We work to stop illegal waste activities and support legitimate business whilst protecting communities and nature from harm.

“We take illegal waste activity very seriously and will not hesitate to disrupt activity and prosecute those responsible.”

The Environment Agency sent warning letters to two other companies which also deposited waste at the site.

Staffordshire woman prosecuted for not removing illegal waste

Lissa Appleby pleaded guilty to a single offence of failing to remove illegal waste and fined £550 and also ordered to pay a victim’s surcharge of £220 at Cannock Magistrates Court.

The court was told that officers from the Environment Agency visited the address she was renting at Mill Farm, Cappers Lane, Whittington, Lichfield on October 13, 2023.

The address consisted of a domestic property, large grounds and a barn. The Environment Agency said several hundred tonnes of dry shredded waste was discovered inside the barn, containing plastic sheeting, plastic textiles, metals, wood and cardboard.

Appleby was given guidance that an environmental permit would be required for the activities carried out or for the waste to be removed by a person who held the correct waste carriers’ licence.

The Environment Agency issued a letter to immediately cease activities at the property, believing Appleby was operating an illegal waste site.

A spokesperson for the Environment Agency commented: “This site posed a significant environmental threat due to the high risk of fire and potential impact to local communities and amenities.”

The post Three ordered to pay £75,000 in fines over illegal waste activity appeared first on Circular Online.

England’s recycling rate for “waste from households” fell by 0.7 percentage points to 43.4% in 2022 compared to 44.1% in 2021.

The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) released statistics on local authority collected waste management for 2022/23, showing a fall in recycling rates.

“Waste from households” is the official recycling measure used for reporting at a harmonised UK level.

Household waste is broader than “waste from households” as it includes waste from street bins, street sweepings, and parks and grounds – but it does not include metals from incinerator bottom ash.

In 2022, total “waste from households” decreased to 21.5 million tonnes from 23.1 million tonnes in 2021. Defra said this is equivalent to 377 kg per person, down from 409 kg per person.

The total amount of waste recycled decreased by 8.6% in 2022, falling from 10.2 million tonnes in 2021 to 9.3 million tonnes.

In 2022, the amount of dry material recycled was 5.5 million tonnes, a 7.1% decrease from 2021.

The amount of residual waste treated was 12.1 million tonnes, down from 12.9 million tonnes in 2021, a decrease of 6.0%.

The tonnage of separately collected food waste sent for recycling was 499 thousand tonnes, a decrease of 2.6% from 512 thousand tonnes in 2021.

How are local authorities managing waste?

Local authority-managed waste decreased by 6% to 24.5 million tonnes in 2022/23.

7.2% of all local authority waste (1.8 million tonnes) was disposed of via landfill in 2022/23. This was down by 0.3 million tonnes a decrease of 16% from 2021/22.

49.1% of all local authority waste was sent to incineration; however, waste sent for incineration decreased by 0.3 million tonnes (2.8%) to 12.1 million tonnes in 2022/23.

10.0 million tonnes of local authority waste was sent for recycling in 2022/23, a decrease of 0.8 million tonnes (7.7%) from 2021/22.

Amongst the 333 local authorities in England, Defra said there is considerable variation in “household waste” recycling rates, ranging from 17.7% to 61.6% in 2022/23.

The post Recycling rates for English households fall to 43.4% appeared first on Circular Online.