Consultation outcome

Environment Agency charge proposals for simpler recycling: consultation response

Updated 3 February 2026

This response document confirms the outcome of our simpler recycling charges consultation and summarises the feedback we received. New charges will be implemented on 3 February 2026.

Introduction

The simpler recycling charges consultation proposed a new hourly rate charge of £118 per hour. This only applies to businesses or occupiers of relevant non-domestic premises who do not comply with the requirements. This is known as a time and materials charge. We asked for your views on this proposal.

The costs of compliance assessment activities will be met by businesses and non-domestic premises who are non-compliant, rather than those who comply with the regulations. This is in line with the polluter pays principle.

The consultation outlined how we aim to recover regulatory activity costs.

In developing our proposal, we reviewed the regulatory activities required. This activity analysis informed the proposed charge which represents the cost of our regulatory staff completing this compliance work. It is in line with the hourly rates we charge for other technical services.

We consulted as we know our charges can affect those we regulate and we are interested to hear how you think we can regulate more fairly, while safeguarding the environment more effectively.

The charges for simpler recycling are outlined in the Waste (Miscellaneous) (England) Charging Scheme 2018.

The responses we received were mostly positive.

We reviewed all comments submitted within the consultation feedback before considering whether it may be appropriate to make changes to our original proposals. These are the main themes we identified in the feedback:

• supports or partially supports proposals
• alternative suggestions
• how charge affects customers
• protect the environment
• charge scheme
• consultation design

We will address the comments relating to charge scheme and consultation design together. We also address an additional point under the miscellaneous feedback section regarding the time spent on compliance activities. This theme was identified less often in the consultation responses.

The consultation feedback helped us understand respondents’ concerns and any issues relating to our proposals. It was also valuable to hear from those respondents who supported our proposals.

Outcome

We have considered all consultation feedback and assessed whether we need to make changes to our proposals.

In view of the feedback, we will implement a charging scheme for simpler recycling regulatory work with an hourly rate of £118.

The charge proposals were designed to recover the costs of regulation which has a positive environmental effect.

We have published our updated charging scheme. The revised charges will apply from 3 February 2026. You can view these documents on GOV.UK:

• Waste (Miscellaneous) (England) Charging Scheme 2018
• how we calculate our charges

How we ran the consultation

The consultation ran for 8 weeks from 15 May 2025 to 15 July 2025. It was hosted on GOV.UK and our consultations website (Citizen Space). It was open to anybody to take part. Those who preferred to respond by email or post were able to request a copy of the consultation document and response form instead of responding online.

We ran the consultation in line with our legal requirements to consult following the Cabinet Office’s consultation principles guidelines. We notified ministers of our intention to consult.

It was important for us to give our customers the opportunity to understand the proposals and the impact they will have. We encouraged our customers to give us their views through the consultation and publicised it openly.

In the run up to the consultation, our staff engaged with trade bodies by email, and directly during meetings and engagement events. We contacted 20 trade associations directly via email (who collectively represent over 350,000 businesses) to inform them of the consultation. We also publicised it in the Defra circular economy email, which has a reach of over 13,700 email accounts. The consultation was also covered in various trade press outlets reaching other potential stakeholders.

Overview of responses

In total, we received 60 responses to this consultation. This included 59 responses that directly answered the consultation questions:

• 57 sent through our online consultation tool (Citizen Space)
• 2 submitted using our consultation response form

We also received one response by email, which gave us feedback but did not directly answer the consultation questions. We have not included this response in the numerical summaries of the question responses. However, we have included the themes raised in this response together with the online and form responses.

The 59 responses that directly answered our consultation question format were submitted by:

• 33 organisations or businesses
• 23 individuals
• 1 other
• 2 who did not specify whether they responded as an ‘individual’, on behalf of an ‘organisation or business’, or ‘other’

Consultees were asked if they were waste collectors or producers:

• waste collector and producer – 10
• waste collector only – 5
• waste producer only – 19
• not applicable – 18
• no answer given – 7

Annex 1 gives detailed information about the responses to all consultation questions and a summary of the themes we identified in the consultation feedback.

Annex 2 gives a list of organisations and groups that participated in the consultation. These represent a broad range of private and public sector organisations that we regulate.

We would like to thank all those who participated in the consultation and took the time to provide this valuable feedback.

Consultation feedback and our response

This section includes a summary of feedback relating to the main themes identified in consultation responses. We include our response under each of the main themes.

Supports or partially supports proposal – feedback

Some responses included comments that agreed or partially agreed with our proposal. Respondents commented it is reasonable for the regulator to recover costs and for the charges to be paid by those who are non-compliant, while highlighting the financial motivation of avoiding a charge may encourage compliance. These are some examples of the responses:

“I believe it’s proportionate. The EA has been underfunded for years and this will help to support ongoing enforcement.”

“Those who are non-compliant should have to pay for being non-compliant. Hopefully it will encourage compliance.”

“Although businesses are consuming quite a few costs at the minute it is not fair that those that do not comply could gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace.”

“Households have been encouraged to do this for many years; it’s about time non-domestic waste producers stepped up!”

“It should encourage compliance as the payment of fees could work as an incentive in ensuring businesses recycle properly while the EA could recover its costs and reduce taxpayer burden.”

“I think charges are the only real incentive to achieve (or at least influence) compliance for legislation like this. Like with any law, there needs to be consequences for failing to adhere it.”

Supports or partially supports proposal – our response

Respondents were supportive of our charge proposals to fully cover the cost of our regulation and acknowledged the ‘polluters pays’ principle to reduce any unfair advantage to businesses or non-domestic premises who do not comply. We will implement our proposal to charge an hourly rate of £118 per hour as outlined in the consultation to enable us to recover the cost of our regulatory duties.

Some respondents were partially supportive of the charge proposal but raised the following concerns:

• a communications campaign needs to be implemented, and more support made available
• initial advice and guidance should be provided for free and then followed by chargeable hours for any further regulatory work
• clarification on food waste minimum threshold is needed before implementing the charge
• there are potential barriers preventing compliance in the short-term such as waste processing infrastructure and inability to source bins

We have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders across different sectors. This included regular meetings with key stakeholders in the waste industry during the lead up and following the guidance published on 31 March 2025 Simpler recycling: workplace recycling in England. We attended over 60 webinars and events, liaised with trade bodies, and responded directly to queries with advice and guidance. We will continue to engage with and support businesses and advise them of upcoming events.

Defra have also engaged via press releases, social media and the provision of resources. This includes the updated guidance for workplaces and work with WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) to produce the Business of Recycling website.

We have already been providing advice and guidance directly to businesses and non-domestic premises where there is a suspicion of non-compliance. Once the simpler recycling charge is in place, if our advice is ignored, we will be able to issue a compliance notice to the waste collector or producer if necessary, and to charge for our time.

If an investigation indicates a business or non-domestic premises is compliant with simpler recycling, there will be no charge for the time and any advice provided. If advice is provided as a necessary part of a compliance activity or as an enforcement response in line with our enforcement and sanctions policy, this will be chargeable only when there is a non-compliance.  

There is no minimum volume for food waste collections.

We are aware of concerns about delivery timelines, pressure on supply chains for vehicles and containers, and the need to upgrade waste and recycling infrastructure. The Environment Agency and Defra are engaging with waste collectors and other key stakeholders across the sector, and we welcome input to help us understand the challenges and ensure successful delivery. Defra continue to work with WRAP to assess potential interventions for addressing bottlenecks in supply chains.

Alternative suggestions – feedback

Some respondents suggested alternative ways of charging including a tiered structure where larger businesses pay more and the use of fixed penalty notices. These are some examples of the responses:

“Perhaps implementing a tiered or banded fee structure based on the size and profitability of a businesses along with a maximum cap on fees might balance the financial impact and provide clarity on overall costs.”

“We propose that a variable fee structure is introduced, where large businesses pay a greater fine than small businesses. Given that large businesses are also likely to produce more waste, this tiered fee approach seems reasonable.”

“It would seem pragmatic to have the ability to serve fixed penalty charges as an additional option for clear breaches of the Simpler Recycling Rules. We would therefore urge the Environment Agency to discuss with Defra whether future changes could be introduced to give them powers to issue fixed penalty notices.”

“This process seems to be burdensome and require more resource, and therefore cost, than issuing fixed penalty charges for non-compliance.”

Alternative suggestions – our response

The proposed hourly rate only applies where there is non-compliance. Therefore, compliant businesses and non-domestic premises will face no charge while those who pose a greater risk to the environment by being non-compliant will pay directly for the service received. This follows the polluter pays principle, rather than basing the charge on business size. This principle received support in this consultation and also in the recent Time and materials and medium combustion plant charges consultation.

We understand some respondents would prefer charges that are based on business size, annual turnover or number of employees. However, our compliance activity, and therefore our costs, is based on environmental risk and complexity rather than business size. Under HM Treasury’s managing public money rules, we have a responsibility to set charges at the appropriate level to recover the costs of our regulatory activity.

We will implement the proposed charge based on the same hourly rate for all businesses and non-domestic premises. We want our charges to be fair for our customers which is why the charge will depend on how many hours we spend on regulatory work. Where the work is more complicated, involves widespread or persistent non-compliance, or has a higher environmental risk, it will typically take us longer and cost more.

We acknowledge that the use of civil sanctions fixed penalty notices is a useful enforcement tool for other regimes. It can act as a deterrent to non-compliance and as a proportionate response where a prosecution is not appropriate. However, this is currently not available for simpler recycling non-compliances. An offence is committed if a compliance notice is not complied with and this is a criminal offence that can be pursued for prosecution through court for a fine.

We cannot use money from fines arising from prosecutions as this is returned to HM Treasury. We do not set the level of fine as this is the role of the courts. Fines from prosecutions would not enable full cost recovery or provide a sustainable form of funding. We would only consider prosecution as a last resort where other enforcement options such as advice and guidance, compliance notices and warning letters have not secured compliance.

How charge affects customers – feedback

Some respondents commented on the economic challenges faced by businesses, highlighting that smaller businesses may struggle to afford any additional costs. These are some examples of the responses:

“The fees proposed would have a significant impact on a small business that is found to be not adhering to the regulations potentially through a lack of awareness, rather than intent.”

“Some organisations may not be able to afford this charge, especially if the hourly charge is until the remedial measures have been completed.”

“Small and medium sized businesses can no longer afford the environmental taxes being charged in this country.”

“Blanket charges penalise the most vulnerable, like small businesses, schools, charities etc., most.”

How charge affects customers – our response

We recognise there are additional challenges for smaller businesses. Micro-firms (workplaces with fewer than 10 full-time equivalent employees) still have until 31 March 2027 to comply with the new requirements.

We are aware that economic circumstances are having a significant impact on many businesses who are potentially in scope of a simpler recycling charge. We understand the pressure this puts on businesses, and before proposing new charges, we thoroughly consider alternative options to make sure we deliver our duties in the most effective and efficient way possible.

Inflation and rising costs impact our own service delivery in much the same way as any other organisation. In accordance with requirements of HM Treasury’s managing public money rules, we aim to fully recover the costs of regulatory services delivered to charge payers. Our activity requirements, efficiency savings and cost analysis are scrutinised internally, then by Defra and HM Treasury.

The proposed charge is designed to recover the costs of regulation which has a positive environmental effect. This will help us increase recycling rates and protect the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from landfill. Our charge proposals sought cost recovery with no profit for the activities required to regulate individual charge payers.

As the hourly rate only applies where there is non-compliance, there will be no charge for businesses and non-domestic premises who have suitable recycling arrangements in place. This approach lowers the regulatory burden on businesses who take measures to comply with the simpler recycling requirements.

We recognise there are sensitivities with introducing a new charge that has the potential to impact a large group of stakeholders who previously were not regulated by the Environment Agency. Since implementation, our focus has been on engagement and providing advice which has been free of charge. However, we must recover our costs from those we regulate.

We will continue to have regard to the growth duty and support businesses and non-domestic premises by providing advice. We will take a pragmatic approach, prioritising helping stakeholders understand new requirements and working with them to support them in overcoming any difficulties they might face in relation to compliance.

Protect the environment – feedback

Some respondents highlighted the need for everyone to be accountable for recycling and agreed charges are required for effective enforcement. These are some examples:

“Everyone needs to take responsibility for recycling.”

“Carrot doesn’t work in relation to waste legislation – only the threat and subsequent use of charges will work.”

“There needs to be penalties to those that do not comply with regulation and are careless when it comes to recycling.”

“Financial penalties for non-compliance relating to waste has been too low for too long.”

“It is important that businesses comply with recycling regulations as they produce waste in large amounts. They have more impact than individuals. Large businesses in particular should be held accountable.”

“Effective enforcement is crucial to delivering the policy’s aims and supporting the transition to a circular economy.”

Protect the environment – our response

We appreciate the positive feedback provided by respondents who want to see recycling and the enforcement of the policy prioritised.

Our proposed hourly rate will allow us to deliver our regulatory duties by completing intelligence led compliance checks where there is suspicion of non-compliance. It is a legal requirement for waste to be collected in accordance with the simpler recycling rules, and this charge proposal will enable us to monitor and improve compliance.

Many respondents acknowledged the need for effective regulation to protect the environment and hold non-compliant businesses and non-domestic premises to account. The proposed charge will help provide funding for this regulation which in turn will support the key policy aims to:

• improve the quantity and quality of materials for recycling and to increase recycling rates
• reduce the quantity of food and recyclable waste that is landfilled or incinerated
• reduce carbon emissions alongside environmental and societal impacts from waste disposal
• support the growth of the UK reprocessing industry and the drive towards a circular economy

Charge scheme and consultation design – feedback

Some respondents were partially supportive of the proposals but thought the hourly rate was too high and were unclear on how the figure was reached. There were also respondents who said they needed more information about what the hourly rate includes before they could decide. These are some examples:

“I believe a charge is acceptable for those who have been found to not be compliant and after a follow-up visit have made no effort to correct this. I believe a £118 charge an hour is a ridiculously high charge however”.

“It would be interesting to know how the £118 figure was reached.”

“We cannot support the proposal in its current format without greater detail.”

“There is no information in relation to the likely time the EA believes will be required by regulatory staff to complete work for example is it from the moment you arrive on site, or does this include travel time.”

“There is not enough information around what exactly will be charged for, such as if travel time is included, or whether the time charged for is back dated to when you were first alerted to a potential non-compliance.”

Charge scheme and consultation design – our response

Our charges are modelled to fully recover the cost of the officer undertaking the work. The hourly rate was calculated using the same process as other charges and is in line with hourly charges for other technical services. This is explained in more detail in our guide how we calculate our charges.

 When developing our charges we include:

• direct costs (people costs, non-people costs, operations management and support, fixed costs)
• corporate costs (IT, estates, finance, shared services, communications, human resources, procurement and commercial)
• capital finance costs
• bad debt

The cost of travel such as fuel, car hire or train tickets, is built into the rate itself, and the actual time spent travelling to a site compliance visit is included as part of the chargeable activities (if it is a necessary part of the assessment) and is charged at the hourly rate.

Our charges are calculated based on our direct and indirect costs, as set out in the guidance. We do not make a profit, and the charge recovers the amount that it costs to have an officer in place to undertake that activity. If the initial compliance checks demonstrate a business or non-domestic premises is compliant, then they will not face a charge.

Miscellaneous – feedback

Some respondents were concerned that the hourly rate may encourage extra unnecessary hours to be spent on compliance activities or times to be modified so the price can be increased.

Miscellaneous – our response

When we bill customers, we always itemise what we have billed for, and we can provide an explanation of any charge. There is no incentive to spend unnecessary time to charge extra as this time could be more efficiently spent on a new compliance activity which may pose a greater environmental risk and provide chargeable hours.

If a customer wishes to complain about their charges, or ask us to review a decision we have made about their charges, they can do so in accordance with our complaints procedure.

Next steps

We have considered all consultation feedback and assessed whether we need to make changes to our proposals. As proposed in the consultation, we will implement the charging scheme with an hourly rate of £118 which is chargeable only where there is non-compliance.

We have now published the updated charging scheme on GOV.UK.

Annex 1: Summary of consultation responses

This annex sets out the responses we received to our consultation on a proposed new charge to cover the cost of our service.

The consultation included questions on:

• our charge proposal
• additional questions

We received 59 responses through the online tool and consultation response form. We also received one email with comments relating to the consultation.

Additional questions

Within the online tool and response form we included an ‘additional questions’ section to provide us with an understanding of who responded, and to help us better analyse the consultation feedback.

We asked if consultees were giving a response as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. The 59 responses (57 online and 2 using our consultation response form) stated:

• responding as an individual – 23
• responding on behalf of an organisation, group or trade association – 33
• other – 1
• no answer given – 2

For those responding on behalf of an organisation we also asked how many people work there:

• 0 to 10 (or sole trader) – 10
• 11 to 50 – 5
• 51 to 100 – 4
• 101 to 250 – 2
• more than 250 – 18
• no answer given – 20

Consultees were asked if they were waste collectors or producers:

• waste collector and producer – 10
• waste collector only – 5
• waste producer only – 19
• not applicable – 18
• no answer given – 7

Consultation questions

Questions are set out in the same format as they were presented in the online consultation tool and response form. Multiple-choice questions gave respondents the option to select one response. These were followed by a free text box for comments.

For each question, we report all the multiple-choice option responses. These are followed by a list of themes identified most frequently in the free text comments.

Themes are given in descending order with the most frequently identified first.

Question 1: Do you agree or disagree with the proposed introduction of an hourly rate charge for businesses or occupiers of relevant non-domestic premises who do not comply with the rules of simpler recycling?

This question received more positive responses (32) than negative responses (22):

• strongly agree – 18
• agree – 14
• neither agree nor disagree – 5
• disagree – 10
• strongly disagree – 12
• do not know – 0
• not applicable – 0
• no answer given – 0

Comments relating to this question were submitted by 49 respondents to the consultation (83%). The following themes were identified at least 10 times:

• ‘supports or partially supports proposal’ – 34
• ‘alternative suggestions’ – 16
• ‘how charge affects customers’ – 15
• ‘charge scheme’ and ‘consultation design’ – 12
• ‘protect environment’ – 11

The following themes were identified less often:

• ‘service we provide’ – 5
• ‘how we manage charges – 2

Ten respondents left no comment. Within the comments 4 were not charge related. Any issues relating to specific teams or departments have been flagged to the relevant managers.

Letter and email responses

We analysed the comments in the one response submitted by email. This response did not align with our consultation question format. The following themes were identified:

• ‘charge scheme’ and ‘consultation design’ – 2
• ‘supports or partially supports proposal’ – 1
• ‘protect environment’ – 1
• ‘service we provide’ – 1

Annex 2: List of consultation participants and ‘other’

List of organisations or businesses that gave a name

The following organisation or business names were provided by respondents who gave permission for their responses to be published. (Names are not included if the organisation or business has not given permission for us to publish their response.)

• A.F. Blakemore & Son Ltd
• Anaerobic digestion and bioresources association
• AVA: The Vending & Automated Retail Association
• Beijer Ref
• Biffa Waste Services
• Canal & River Trust
• Charity Retail Association
• CIWM
• Confederation of Paper Industries
• Cory
• Environmental Services Association
• Intelisos
• LARAC
• Leicestershire County Council – Leicester, Leicestershire
• Luton Council
• NDC Certification Bureau Ltd
• Oadby Plastics
• Recolight
• Reconomy Connect
• Renewable Energy Association (REA)
• RSSB
• Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
• Southampton City Council
• Stockton Borough Council
• Transport UK East Anglia
• University of Birmingham, Birmingham Plastics Network
• UROC
• Veolia UK
• WWT