Does My Business Need to Comply with the Waste Regulations?

Short answer: yes. If you run a business, charity or any other workplace, you produce waste, and if you produce waste, you have legal duties. The size of your business, the type of waste and where you operate change which duties apply, but there is no sector or headcount that switches them all off.

This guide explains the main waste obligations for businesses in England, what has changed recently, and how to check whether you are compliant. It also flags where Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland differ.

What do we mean by “the Waste Regulations”?

There is no single set of regulations called “the Waste Regulations”. Businesses are usually caught by a combination of:

  • The waste duty of care (Section 34, Environmental Protection Act 1990), which applies to everyone who produces, keeps, carries, treats or disposes of business waste.
  • The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011, which require businesses to take all reasonable steps to apply the waste hierarchy (prevent, reuse, recycle, recover, then dispose).
  • Workplace recycling rules (“Simpler Recycling”), which require businesses in England to separate certain waste streams.
  • Hazardous waste regulations, which apply if you produce waste that is harmful to people or the environment.
  • Producer responsibility rules, covering packaging, electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and batteries, which apply depending on what you place on the market.
  • Digital waste tracking, a new system that is rolling out in phases.

Which of these apply to you depends on your answers to a few simple questions, covered below.


1. The duty of care: it applies to every business

If your business produces waste of any kind, the duty of care applies to you. In practice it means you must:

  • Store waste safely and securely so it cannot escape, be stolen or cause pollution.
  • Only pass waste to an authorised person, such as a registered waste carrier or a permitted site. Check the carrier’s registration on the Environment Agency public register.
  • Describe the waste accurately and complete a waste transfer note (or hazardous waste consignment note) for each transfer. Waste transfer notes should be kept for at least two years; hazardous waste consignment notes for at least three years.
  • Take reasonable steps to make sure the waste is managed lawfully after it leaves your premises.

You remain responsible for your waste until it has been properly disposed of or recovered. If a “man with a van” takes it and tips it illegally, you can still be prosecuted. Penalties for duty of care offences can include unlimited fines, and serious cases can lead to imprisonment.


2. Workplace recycling: Simpler Recycling in England

England’s Simpler Recycling reforms require workplaces to separate their waste into core streams, working with their waste collector. In broad terms these are:

  • Dry recyclables (paper and card, plastic, metal and glass)
  • Food waste
  • Residual (general) waste

The key dates are:

DateWho is covered
31 March 2025Businesses and non-domestic premises with 10 or more full-time equivalent (FTE) employees
31 March 2027Micro-firms with fewer than 10 FTE employees

Points that catch people out:

  • Headcount is counted across the whole organisation, not per site. Three sites with five staff each is a 15-person business, not three micro-firms.
  • It is not just offices and shops. Charities, schools, care homes and other non-domestic premises are in scope.
  • Staff kitchens count. If your premises produce waste similar to household waste, the rules apply to it.
  • Plastic film and bags are due to be added to the plastic stream at a later date than originally planned. Check current guidance for the latest timetable.

If you do not comply, the Environment Agency can issue compliance notices.

If you are a micro-firm, the 2027 deadline is closer than it feels. Talk to your waste collector now about containers, collection frequency and contract changes.


3. Hazardous waste

Many businesses produce hazardous waste without realising it. Common examples include:

  • Fluorescent tubes and some other lighting
  • Batteries
  • Waste oils, solvents, paints and adhesives
  • Asbestos
  • Some electrical equipment and electronic screens
  • Clinical and healthcare waste
  • Certain chemical-contaminated materials

If you produce hazardous waste you must classify it correctly, keep it separate from non-hazardous waste, use a registered carrier, and complete consignment notes for each movement. Mixing hazardous waste with other waste is generally unlawful.


4. Digital waste tracking: what has just changed

Digital waste tracking is designed to replace much of the paper-based system with a single national digital service, to improve traceability and tackle waste crime.

  • From 1 October 2026, operators of permitted waste receiving sites in England and Wales must record the waste they receive through the government’s digital service. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own timetables, so check the position there.
  • Waste collectors, carriers, brokers and dealers are expected to follow in a later phase, anticipated from October 2027.
  • Waste producers have no mandatory date yet.

For now, you must carry on completing waste transfer notes and consignment notes as normal. However, it is sensible to ask your waste contractor how they are preparing, because the data they will need from you is likely to increase.


Business waste bins separated for dry recycling, food waste and general waste

Do you know what waste your business produces?

5. Producer responsibility: packaging, WEEE and batteries

Separate from the day-to-day waste you throw away, you may have obligations because of what you supply:

  • Packaging: extended producer responsibility (EPR) rules require larger businesses that supply or handle packaging to report packaging data and pay fees. Thresholds are based on turnover and tonnage, so check whether you are in scope.
  • WEEE: businesses that sell electrical and electronic equipment have take-back and financing duties.
  • Batteries: businesses that supply batteries have their own registration and take-back duties.

If you manufacture, import or sell products, take specific advice on these.


6. Does it apply outside England?

Yes, although the detail differs.

  • Wales: workplace recycling regulations have applied since April 2024, requiring separate collection of core materials, including food waste.
  • Scotland: the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012 require businesses to present dry recyclables and, for many, food waste for separate collection.
  • Northern Ireland: separate legislation applies, including duties to segregate recyclables, with its own timetable for digital waste tracking.
  • Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man: each has its own waste legislation, and the English rules above do not apply.

If you operate across more than one jurisdiction, you need to manage each site against the local rules.


A quick compliance checklist

Ask yourself:

  1. Do I know what types and volumes of waste my business produces?
  2. Is any of it hazardous, and is it classified and segregated correctly?
  3. Is my waste collector or carrier registered, and do I hold up-to-date transfer notes and consignment notes?
  4. Do I separate dry recyclables, food waste and general waste as required for my size and location?
  5. Have I recorded my headcount across the whole organisation to confirm which deadline applies?
  6. Do my staff know what goes where?
  7. If I supply packaging, electrical goods or batteries, have I checked my producer responsibility obligations?
  8. Do I know what my contractor needs from me for digital waste tracking?

If you cannot answer yes to all of these, a waste compliance review is a sensible next step.


What happens if you get it wrong?

Consequences can include compliance notices, fixed penalties, prosecution with unlimited fines, and reputational damage, particularly if your waste ends up fly-tipped or illegally dumped. Poor waste management is also frequently a health and safety issue, from fire risks in poorly stored waste to manual handling injuries and exposure to hazardous substances.


How we can help

Waste compliance sits alongside health, safety and environmental management, and many businesses find it easier to deal with them together. We can prepare a legal register detailing each piece of waste legislation that applies to your business and what you must do to comply with it. We can also maintain this register when new legislation is introduced or your sites or operations change.

Contact one of our team to find out how we can help you with your waste obligations.

This article is general guidance and not legal advice. Legislation and deadlines change; please contact us for advice on your specific circumstances.

Large scale illegal waste crime in Staffordshire

Multiple people involved in large scale illegal waste crime in Staffordshire are facing prison following a successful prosecution by the Environment Agency.

The sentencing, which led to the conviction of 5 of the defendants, took place on 2 April 2024, at Shrewsbury Crown Court sitting at Telford Magistrates, following an 8-week trial in September and October 2023.

The prosecution concerned a large-scale illegal dumping of waste at Bonnie Braes Farm in Staffordshire, with offences taking place between 1 March 2014 and 30 June 2015. โ€ฏ

At least 100,000 tonnes of waste was brought onto the site during the charge period, when there was no legal right to do so. This activity included a significant amount waste from excavation, alongside other mixed refuse and some asbestos.

The volume of waste added to the site meant that the land was raised by 6 – 7 metres in height. Additional concern was created by the crucial gas distribution pipeline which passes underneath Bonnie Braes Farm, one of two that supplies Stoke-on-Trent. A fracture of the pipeline would have had devastating consequences, causing disruption to the supply of gas as well as the potential closure of the busy A500 road for a significant period.

Mr Recorder Nicholls, found that the offending caused Category 1 harm to the environment due to the eyesore that the deposits caused. In considering the large scale illegal waste crime in Staffordshire, he stated the impact that the weight had on the site, created negative effects not only to the gas pipeline but also to a culvert on the site, which was found to have collapsed, causing significant flooding to the land in heavy rain. The operation of the site also caused significant disruption on lanes that were unsuitable for large vehicles and the tracking of mud from the site across the roads.ย 

Large scale illegal waste crime in Staffordshire

We are glad to see the outcome of these prosecutions and will continue to work tirelessly to tackle environmental crime.ย  Illegal waste sites like this, undermine legitimate businesses, undercut their prices, and blight the environment. We would urge everyone to check that a waste site is licenced before using them by checking the public register online at GOV.UK.โ€ฏIf people suspect criminal activity, they should report it to our 24-hour incident hotline 0800 807060 or anonymously through CrimeStoppers on 0800 555111.

Environment Agency Spokesperson

Large Scale Illegal Waste Crime Sentences

Mr Recorder Nicholls imposed the sentences as follows:

Raymond Bowden,64 of Liverpool Road, Church Lawton, was sentenced to 30 months immediate custody. He was also disqualified from holding the position of a director for a period of 8 years and 3 months. A Proceeds of Crime Application is outstanding and will be determined at a future date.

Joe Frizell, 48 of Crewe Road, Shavington, was sentenced to 2 years immediate custody. He was also disqualified from holding the position of a director for a period of 6 years. A Proceeds of Crime Application is outstanding and will be determined at a future date.

James Bowden, 44 of Bignall Hill, Bignall End was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment that was immediately suspended for 18 months. He must undertake 240 hours of unpaid work. He was also disqualified from holding the position of a director for a period of 5 years. A Proceeds of Crime Application is outstanding and will be determined at a future date.

Victoria Webb-Johnson, 47 of Sydney Road, Crewe was sentenced to 10 weeks imprisonment suspended for 12 months. She was also ordered to pay a contribution towards the costs of the prosecution of ยฃ8000 and the victim surcharge.

Stefan Paraszko, 66 of High Street Silverdale, was sentenced to 11 months imprisonment that was immediately suspended for 18 months and the victim surcharge.

VWJ Earth Moving Limited was fined ยฃ11,000 and ordered to pay a contribution towards the costs of the prosecution of ยฃ8000 and the victim surcharge

Jumbo Waste and Metal Limited was fined ยฃ1, as the company is in liquidation, and the victim surcharge.

TW Frizell (Haulage & Plant Hire) Ltd was fined ยฃ1, as the company is in liquidation, and the victim surcharge.

Joe Frizell was also sentenced alongside RJC Regeneration Limited in respect of a matter that occurred at Elms Farm, Betley, Crewe. In that case waste was deposited without the benefit of an Environmental Permit and exceeded the allowances of any waste exemptions. 

In respect of the Elms Farm case, Mr Recorder Nicholls imposed the following sentences:

Joe Frizell was sentenced to 2 months immediate custody to run concurrently with his other sentence – this means he received a total of 2 years immediate custody overall.

RJC Regeneration Limited was fined ยฃ8000 and the victim surcharge

Further information

In the matter large scale illegal waste crime in Staffordshire from Chester Crown Court, Joe Frizell, RJC Regeneration Ltd and Mark Oulton pleaded guilty on 18 July 2023 to offences relating to the depositing of illegal waste at Doddlespool Farm and Elms Farm, Crewe at Chester Crown Court on 18 July 2023.

Mark Oulton, 53 of Main Road, Betley, was sentenced by Chester Crown Court on 8 September 2023 to 9 months custody suspended for 18 months. In addition, he was sentenced to 130 hours unpaid work, a ยฃ5000 fine and ordered to pay a contribution towards the prosecution costs of ยฃ27,000.โ€ฏMr Oulton was also made subject to a court order requiring him to remove waste illegally deposited and stored on Doddlespool Farm by 8 September 2024.โ€ฏ 

Large Scale Illegal Waste Crime Charges

Jumbo Waste & Metals Ltd 

Jumbo Waste & Metals Ltd did between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, contravened regulation 12(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 operate a regulated facility on land known as Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End, without the authorisation of an environmental permit, contrary to Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. 

Raymond Bowden

Raymond Bowden did between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, contravened regulation 12(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 operate a regulated facility on land known as Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End, without the authorisation of an environmental permit, contrary to Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. 

James Bowden

Between the 12th January 2015 and the 30th June 2015, Jumbo Waste & Metals Ltd contravened regulation 12 of the environmental permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 by operating a regulated facility at Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End outside the terms of authorisation of an environmental permit and this offence was committed with the consent or connivance or was attributable to the neglect of James Bowden, being a director of the said company, contrary to Regulation 38(1) and Regulation 41(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. 

Stefan Paraszko 

Stefan Paraszko pleaded guilty to between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, contravened regulation 12(1) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 operating a regulated facility on land known as Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End, without the authorisation of an environmental permit, contrary to Regulation 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. 

TW Frizell (Haulage & Plant Hire) Ltd

TW Frizell (Haulage & Plant Hire) Ltd, between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, deposited controlled waste on land at Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End when there was no environmental permit in force authorising the deposits, contrary to sections 33(1)(a) and 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.โ€ฏโ€ฏ 

Joe Frizell

Between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, TW Frizell (Haulage & Plant Hire) Ltd deposited controlled waste on land at Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End when there was no environmental permit in force authorising the deposits and this offence was committed with the consent or connivance or was attributable to the neglect of Joe Frizell, being a director of the said company, contrary to sections 33(1)(a), 33(6) and 157(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

VWJ Earthmoving Ltd 

VWJ Earthmoving Ltd pleaded guilty to between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, depositing controlled waste on land at Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End when there was no environmental permit in force authorising the deposits, contrary to sections 33(1)(a) and 33(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.โ€ฏโ€ฏ 

Victoria Webb-Johnson 

Victoria Webb-Johnson pleaded guilty to between the 1st March 2014 and the 30th June 2015, VWJ Earthmoving Ltd deposited controlled waste on land at Bonnie Braes Farm, Bignall End when there was no environmental permit in force authorising the deposits and this offence was committed with the consent or connivance or was attributable to the neglect of Victoria Webb-Johnson, being the director of the said company, contrary to sections 33(1)(a), 33(6) and 157(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. 

Chester Court Charges

Mark Oulton

Between 16 February 2018 to 22 March 2021 at Doddlespool Farm, Main Road, Betley, Crewe, CW3 9AE, Markโ€ฏ Oulton did operate a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for storage of waste, except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit, contrary to Regulations 12 and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

Between 3 October 2017 to 22 March 2021 at Elms Farm, Betley Road, Betley, Crewe, Mark Oulton did operate a regulated facility, namely a waste operation for storage of waste, except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit, contrary to Regulations 12 and 38(1)(a) of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

RJC Regeneration Ltd 

Between 3 October 2017 to 23 March 2018 at Elms Farm, Betley Road, Betley, Crewe, RJC Regeneration Ltd did deposit waste on land without the benefit of an environmental permit contrary to Section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Joe Frizell 

Between 3 October 2017 to 23 March 2018 at Elms Farm, Betley Road, Betley, Crewe, RJC Regeneration Ltd did deposit waste on land without the benefit of an environmental permit and that offence was committed with the consent, connivance or was attributable to the neglect of Joe Frizell contrary to Sections 33(1)(a) and 157 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

If you require advice on environmental permits or waste exemptions, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

Waste exports prosecution

Director fined following a waste exports prosecution investigation by the Environment Agency.ย  The EA successfully prosecuted a former company director for illegally exporting banned household waste including nappies, clothing, textiles, tins and electrical items from a site in Droitwich, Worcestershire, to Indonesia in 2019.

At Kidderminster Magistrates Court on Wednesday 10 August 2022, Tianyong Wang, 43, of Solihull, Warwickshire, was fined ยฃ1,200 and ordered to pay costs of ยฃ10,000.

He had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing in April 2022 to causing his dissolved company, Berry Polymer Limited, to export the waste to Indonesia. Shipping documents described the waste as plastic, which can be exported to Indonesia for recycling.

Howard McCann, prosecuting for the Environment Agency, told the court that between 27 June and 5 July 2019, Wang had caused his company to export some 382 tonnes of household waste in 22 sea containers from its site in Droitwich via the ports of Felixstowe and Southampton to Indonesia.

Included in the waste were about 1,590 nappies or sanitary items, plus 1,338 electrical items and about 33,639 tins/cans.

waste exports prosecution
One of the 22 containers of waste investigated (courtesy of the Environment Agency)

Other contaminants included numerous items of clothing, textiles and rags, unopened plastic bags, glass, wood, golf balls, toys, a used toilet brush and contaminated food and drink cartons.

Mr McCann told the court that the defendant was the sole director of Berry Polymer Limited, a company which was dissolved on 24 August 2021, at the time of the offending.

Wang had agreed to sell some 500 tonnes of plastic bottle waste to a broker at ยฃ270 per tonne. A purchase order confirmed the load site of the waste as โ€œBerry Polymer Limited, 20 The Furlong Droitwich WR9 9AH.โ€ Berry Polymer invoiced the broker ยฃ103,210.20 for 382.26 tonnes of โ€œplastic bottles.โ€

The offence was discovered by Environment Agency officers who conducted initial inspections of some of the 22 containers at the ports of Southampton (17 containers) and Felixstowe (5) on 4 July 2019.

These inspections recorded significant evidence of contamination, flies and, in some containers, a rotting decomposing smell.  The containers were deemed unfit for export at that stage and prevented from onward shipment to Indonesia.

Five of the containers were transported to the Environment Agencyโ€™s inspection facility at Felixstowe for full examination, one of the bales examined was so bad that an officer was physically sick.  Ultimately all the containers were returned to the site in Droitwich for reprocessing.

When interviewed, Wang, who was abroad at the time, said the material supplied was not as described because his companyโ€™s usual bale inspection had either not happened or was sub-standard.

In sentencing, District Judge Strongman said this was a โ€œblunderโ€ by Wang, which had cost him his business and his reputation.

This prosecution sends out a strong message that we will investigate and where necessary prosecute anyone found to be involved in illegally exporting waste.

Waste crime can have a serious environmental impact and puts communities at risk. It undermines legitimate business and the investment and economic growth that goes with it.

We support legitimate businesses and are proactively supporting them by disrupting and stopping the illegal waste exports.

Sham Singh, senior investigating officer for the Environment Agency

In this case the defendant was charged with offences under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 2007 (TFS).ย  The export of waste collected from households to non-OECD (Organisation for Economic and Development) countries is prohibited by Article 36 of the Waste Shipment Regulations.ย  The offence of transporting waste to a non-OECD country in breach of the prohibition is created by Regulation 23 and the directorsโ€™ offence by regulation 55(1) of the TFS Regulations 2007. The offence is one of strict liability – strict liability offences are crimes which require no proof of intent. Strict liability offences are primarily regulatory offences aimed at businesses in relation to environment, health and safety.

A shipment of waste starts at the point of loading in the country of dispatch and continues until the waste has been recovered at the facility in the country of destination. This is why the export is not regarded as an attempt, despite the containers being prevented from leaving Felixstowe and Southampton.

For waste to be categorised as green list such as plastic waste, it must have been collected separately or been properly sorted.

Properly sorted means that the sorting is sufficient to remove contaminants to the point where any contamination that remains is so small as to be minimal and does not prevent the waste from becoming green list waste. If you require environmental advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.

TCM attendance changes

The Environment Agency has published the results of a consultation on TCM attendance changes.ย  The Environment Agency consulted with stakeholders to hear their views on proposed options and changes to the attendance requirements for technically competent managers (TCMs).

The consultation explained:

  • how the current technical competence attendance requirements work
  • options for proposed changes to the methods of calculating TCM attendance and other proposed changes to the attendance requirements
  • proposed implementation timescales

The responses to the TCM attendance changes consultation will help shape a second, more detailed consultation.ย  This will provide further details for option 1: attendance linked to charge bands, and other rules associated with the attendance requirements for technically competent managers.ย  The EA aim to publish the next consultation in summer 2023.

The EA received a broad range of views which will help develop guidance on the attendance requirements for technically competent managers.  The EA received 75 responses to the consultation:

  • 32 from site operators and companies with permits
  • 18 from trade associations and other organisations and groups
  • 12 from consultants
  • 5 from local authorities
  • 8 from individuals and members of the public

Those responding generally agreed that new guidance was needed to explain the attendance requirements for TCMs and provided views on the 3 options preferred for calculating the attendance requirements:

  • option 1: attendance linked to charge bands โ€“ 36%
  • option 2: standard baseline attendance for all waste facilities โ€“ 16%
  • option 3: tailored baseline attendance for waste operations and waste installations โ€“ 30.67%
  • no preference โ€“ 14.67%
  • Two respondents (2.67%) did not provide an answer to this question.

Many of those responding highlighted the potential for environmental benefits should TCM attendance increase at poor performing sites. However, the extent of this benefit would depend on the specific circumstances. Approximately 75% of those responding supported the adjustment of the attendance requirement based on operator performance, with those in deteriorating or poor compliance bands requiring increased TCM attendance.

TCM attendance changes
Changes proposed to TCM attendance requirements at waste sites

Some of those responding stated that applying attendance requirements for the Environmental Services Association (ESA)/Energy & Utility (EU) Skills technical competence scheme would undermine the purpose of this scheme, but there was general support for other proposals on the 48 hour attendance cap, 24 hour operations, multiple regulated facilities and mothballed sites.

For permit transfers, some respondents highlighted situations where transfers were โ€˜administrativeโ€™ and in those instances they did not support previously agreed TCM attendance requirements reverting back to those required by the guidance.

For closed landfills nearly 40% of respondents agreed with the proposals, whilst 50% did not have a view. The Environment Agency concluded that it anticipate the majority of the 50% who did not have a view do not operate activities involving closed landfills.

Most of those who responded did not have a view on the proposals for mobile plant attendance requirements. Around one third supported the proposals on mobile plant and less than 10% disagreed.

Nearly half of respondents supported a 12 month implementation period for the new guidance. Because, for example, this would give operators time to understand the new guidance and train or recruit additional TCMs if required.

The Agency received a broad range of views which will help develop the attendance requirements for TCMs guidance and it intends to launch the next consultation in summer 2023. It will include further details of the favoured option and other proposed changes to the attendance requirements.

Operators who apply for an environmental permit for a waste operation must be members of (and comply with) a government approved technical competency scheme. Most existing waste environmental permit holders must also comply with a government approved technical competency scheme through the conditions in their permits.

For operators that show competence through the scheme run by the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board, the Environment Agency requires that sites have nominated technically competent manager(s) on site for a specified amount of time each week – this is called the attendance requirement.

The Environment Agency used to calculate attendance requirements using the OPRA risk appraisal guidance. However, except for the sections relating to attendance levels for technically competent managers, this guidance has been withdrawn.

The Agency is now considering changes to the requirements for attendance by TCMs at environmental permit sites. If you require environmental advice or support for your business, please contact one of the Ashbrooke team.