The Challenge of Waste Crime – Signals for 2026

Described as the “new narcotics”, waste crime across the UK is rife, estimated to cost the English economy £1 billion per year. In 2025, of the ten biggest penalties for environmental offending, four related to waste crime.

There have been numerous recent reports in the press of waste crime, committed on an industrial scale, at various sites across the country. The BBC has recently reported that as at the end of 2025 over 500 illegal sites were operating across the country, with 11 of those described as “super-sites”.

The scale of the illegal waste is huge. In November 2025, a mountain of waste was discovered 150 metres in length and 6 meters in height, running alongside the River Cherwell near Kidlington in Oxfordshire. An £8m contract for the urgent clearance of approximately 21,000 tonnes of illegally deposited mixed waste has been awarded this month by the Environment Agency. Earlier last year, in June, there were press reports of over 30,000 tonnes of rubbish having been dumped over a 1.5 acre site in Hoades Wood, Ashford, which is a site of special scientific interest. The rubbish is said to have been dumped there over a six month period in 2023. The clean-up is at that site is also being led by the Environment Agency.

A third site which has been in the news has been Hook Cliff Farm near Grantham. There, approximately 27 tonnes of waste, which included hazardous motor waste, together with commercial and domestic waste was discovered. In this case, criminal proceedings have successfully been brought against the individuals involved. In December these resulted in one defendant being convicted for running a waste site without the requisite environmental permit and disposing of waste in a manner likely to cause environmental pollution. He received a six month suspended prison sentence and was ordered to clear the site by August 2026. A second defendant was convicted of operating a vehicle breaking business from the site without the necessary permits. He received a 10 month suspended prison sentence. A third defendant was convicted of failing to take reasonable measures to prevent deposits of waste which did not have the necessary permits. He received a conditional discharge for two years and a criminal behaviour order.

A fourth defendant, a company using the site to deposit waste, was fined £3,000. It was also ordered to pay costs of £1,500 for making regular deposits of unpermitted waste at the site. Three further companies accepted Enforcement Undertakings offered by the Environment Agency and made donations to environmental charities of £60,000, £12,000 and £26,000 respectively. In terms of the financial gain, the Environment Agency reports that by operating the waste site without the necessary permit, the first defendant had avoided paying permitting fees, taxes and infrastructure costs. The criminal benefit is thought to be in excess of £500,000.

In relation to a fourth site, this time in Cornwall, the Environment Agency has also successfully prosecuted an individual for offences relating to 27 tonnes of waste being illegally imported onto the site. In that case the defendant received a two week suspended prison sentence, 100 hours unpaid work, a fine of £30,000 and was ordered to pay prosecution costs.

The news reports suggest that enforcement agencies are on the back foot when it comes to tackling environmental crime of this magnitude. Often these sites are operated as part of wider organised crime networks, and there are reports of offending occurring for months or years before steps are taking to prevent it. The Environment Agency says it has the resolve and resources to tackle the problem referring to the Joint Unit for Waste Crime which comprises (among others) the Environment Agency, the Police, the National Crime Agency, HMRC, and the National Fire Chiefs Council. Nevertheless, a recent inquiry which was held by the House of Lords’ Environment and Climate Change Committee found in its report published in October 2025 that efforts to deal with serious waste crime were “critically under prioritised”.

These are the cases that make the headlines. However, waste crime does not only involve organised crime, or tonnes of waste being dumped. Anyone who produces, carries, keeps, disposes of, treats, imports or has control of waste in England is subject to the Waste Duty of Care Code of Practice (excluding occupiers of domestic property in relation to household waste) which places responsibility on such waste holders to ensure waste is stored securely to prevent escape or harm, accurately described using waste codes, and is only transferred to authorised waste carriers. It is a criminal offence to breach the waste duty of care.

Given the breadth of the duty of care and those caught by it, well run and generally compliant businesses can sometimes unwittingly find themselves on the wrong end of an environment regulator. It is also often easier for regulators such as the Environment Agency or Local Authorities to take enforcement action against these businesses than it is for them to identify and gather evidence against wider criminal networks. For example, even a national business with relevant policies and procedures can find themselves prosecuted where a local manager arranges for a small amount of waste to be removed from one of its sites and, not following the internal procedures properly, finds someone online to do this for them. That person confirms they have the necessary permit, although this is not double checked by the business. The waste is later discovered dumped in a local field, and contains material which allows the Local Authority to work out where it has come from. Multi-national restaurants and cafes can also find themselves prosecuted if litter escapes from their bins, particularly where repeated warning or fixed penalty notices are not acted upon. What may seem like a minor infringement in these circumstances can result in the business facing a criminal prosecution which may result in lengthy legal proceedings, together with the unwelcome publicity such proceedings attract.

Both of these examples underline the importance of businesses understanding their obligations under the waste duty of care and having robust training and procedures in place to ensure employees are also aware, together with processes in place to check that these are adhered to. Clear methods of communication which allow issues to be shared with management are also crucial.

The current media scrutiny on waste crime has placed increased pressure on regulators due to the perception that they are not acting quickly or effectively. The result of this is likely to be an increased emphasis on enforcement action, with regulators taking a harder line against those who are non-compliant. Businesses would be well advised to get their house in order now.