In the first of a series, this article examines the impact of the Derby case on how local authorities should apply and charities can claim business rate relief.
In December 2014 the Environment Agency (the “EA”) published a Briefing Note entitled “Separate Collection of Recyclables” which details the approach it intends to take to compliance with producers’ and collectors’ obligations under the Waste (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulation 2012 (the “Regulations”). The guidance confirms that the EA expects a high standard from collectors in respect of their new obligations and will adopt a “risk-based regime” towards compliance.
While this is not statutory guidance, but information to “help those affected to meet the requirements”, this is the first substantial guidance that has been produced in respect of the fundamental shift in the processing of recyclable material following the UK’s implementation of EU Law from 1 January 2015.
From 1 January 2015, Waste Collection Authorities or other undertakings which collect waste paper, metal, plastic or glass must do so by way of separate collection. These requirements apply where separate collection is:
- necessary to ensure that waste undergoes recovery operations in accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of the Waste Framework Directive, and to facility or improve recovery (the “Necessity” test); and
- technically, environmental and economically practicable (the “TEEP” test).
EA Guidance – What collectors must do!
Within the guidance, the EA states that:
- collectors (Waste Collection Authorities or establishments or undertakings collecting waste) must, when making arrangements for the collection of waste paper, metal, plastic or glass, ensure that those arrangements are by way of separate collection if the Necessity and TEEP tests are met;
- collectors who currently do not have separate collection arrangements should review their practices and consider if and how they comply ensuring that the Necessity and TEEP test are “rigorously” applied;
- collectors who conclude that it is not necessary or not TEEP to operate separate collection arrangements should keep, and be able to provide for inspection, an audit trail which will assist the EA to understand the basis of that decision-making process;
- the EA specifically advises collectors to consult their lawyers to ensure that they are compliant with the new Regulations;
- collectors are expected to ensure in all cases that their customers can avoid putting paper, plastic, metal or glass in the same collection containers as general waste and, subject to the Necessity and TEEP tests, are expected to collect paper, plastic, metal and glass separately from each other;
- the EA expects producers and collectors (and brokers where applicable) to “work together” to find the right collection system to maximise recycling and compliance with the law.
EA Guidance – “risk-based regime”
The EA is following a “risk-based regime” which is aimed to help collectors achieve compliance but that will at the same time be robust with those who “deliberately ignore their obligations”. The intention is to work with collectors by holding practical conversations or issuing “advisory letters” in the first instance if breaches are found.
Compliance will be reviewed by monitoring sources of information, such as WasteDataFlow and the WRAP website, which will act as indicators of whether a collector is complying with the regulations. The guidance includes an Indicators of Compliance Table (“IoC Table”) to assess whether further scrutiny by the EA is required. The IoC Table is as follows:
Level of Compliance
Level of Intervention
Medium (Possibly failing the Necessity or TEEP test)
Low / non-compliant
The IoC Table is not an exhaustive list of applicable indicators, and collectors should tread carefully when assessing their compliance. To date many collectors have sought to argue that compliance with the new Regulations immediately from 1 January 2015 is impracticable because collection contracts are often for a number of years and the collection infrastructure can have a long lifespan. However, the collection industry has known for several years that the legislation was due to come into effect this January and, as a result, the EA expects to see “improvement measures” being undertaken to contracts that should have taken into account the requirements of the Regulations.
Where, in the EA’s opinion, the indicators above suggest non-compliance, the below “intervention measures” will be engaged, in order, taking into consideration the “suspected” level of compliance and the intent of the operator concerned.
|Stage 1||Advisory phone call or letter – to seek to explore and understand the collection activity, and whether improvements can or should be made.|
|Stage 2||Meeting with operator/collector for discussion|
|Stage 3||Site inspection|
|Stage 4||Site audit|
|Stage 5||Enforcement notice|
|Stage 6||Warning letter|
|Stage 7||Formal caution|
Each stage is aimed at ensuring and encouraging compliance with the Regulations and a number of discussions will no doubt be had at each stage to seek compliance.
The guidance clearly establishes the EA’s position in respect of the Regulations. It expects collectors to comply with the duty to separately collect waste unless compliance isn’t required due to the Necessity and/or TEEP tests.
Collectors should expect to be contacted by the EA (and many will have been contacted between January and March) requesting the disclosure of information on collection methods and, where appropriate, seeking evidence on the application of the Necessity and TEEP tests. Contractors and collectors should therefore be already reviewing their practices, and documentation, in anticipation of contact from the EA.
Should you wish to discuss the new guidance, or your organisation’s compliance with the Regulations, please contact Mrs Gayle Monk or Mr Cynyr Rhys for an informal discussion. Both Gayle and Cynyr were involved in the Judicial Review which led to the amended Regulations being published.
A full copy of the EA’s Briefing Note can be found here.
For more information
“Monitoring the Mental Health Act in 2018/19” published by the CQC, has found that although improvements have been made, healthcare services need to do more to comply with their human rights duties.
The IPPR North report says that this Parliament must be the “Devolution Parliament” to truly “level up” the country.
On 20 January 2020, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) issued Advice for Building Owners of Multi-storey, Multi-occupied Residential Buildings.
The Society for Computers and Law (SCL) has introduced an Adjudication Scheme for IT Projects and Services.
The board of a housing services company was reportedly dismissed in December 2019 following the discovery of a variety of safety and hygiene issues in the properties they manage.
The Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) place certain responsibilities on anyone supplying and charging for heating, cooling or hot water (the heat supplier).
In our latest Company Secretary Update, we focus on the Queen’s Speech over Christmas and the recommendations and commitments in relation to housing.
So after two days of legal argument, the Supreme Court have now retired to reach their decision in the joined cases of Tomlinson-Blake v the Royal Mencap Society and Shannon v Rampersad.
Anthony Collins Solicitors has revealed details of its annual social impact, including advising on funding deals for building 19,603 new homes and setting up 90 new charities.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.