CIWM trainer Jane Hall, Director of Green Edge Applications, on the current challenges for the waste industry when applying for permits.
Environmental permitting ensures that operations comply with the Environmental Permitting Regulations (EPR) which aim to:
- protect the environment so that statutory and government policy environmental targets and outcomes are achieved;
- deliver permitting, and compliance with permits and certain environmental targets, effectively and efficiently, in a way that provides increased clarity and minimises the administrative burden on both the regulator and operators;
- encourage regulators to promote best practice in the operation of facilities; and
- continue to implement relevant European legislation fully, where integrated into UK law.
Yet, for many businesses in England’s waste sector, obtaining or varying an environmental permit has become increasingly challenging.
The Environment Agency (EA) continues to operate under significant resource and workload pressures, which are reflected in recent data showing backlogs, variations in guidance interpretation, and extended determination times. Contributing to permitting delays is the continued receipt of incomplete applications.
While these issues can delay investment and innovation, they also highlight the complex balance the EA must maintain between environmental protection and supporting industry progress.
The permitting landscape in the waste sector
The EA regulates waste activities under the EPR, covering waste treatment, storage, transfer, and disposal operations. Permit types range from simple standard rules permits to complex bespoke permits for energy recovery, biological treatment, or hazardous waste management.
The EA’s 2025–26 Q1 Corporate Scorecard provides a transparent overview of permitting performance. According to the report:
- Category 1 permits (e.g. simple administrative applications): 90% issued within 35 days, against a target of 95%.
- Category 2 permits (e.g. minor variations): 55% issued within 100 days, compared to a 70% target.
- Category 3 permits (e.g. standard rules permits): 56% issued within 140 days, compared to a 70% target.
- Category 4 permits (e.g. complex bespoke applications): 49% issued within 250 days, below the 55% target.
The EA’s performance data confirms that permit determination times are under strain. For waste operators, this translates directly into delayed project delivery and financial uncertainty.
Waste projects, such as transfer stations, treatment facilities, or recycling plants, typically require millions of pounds in upfront investment for land, equipment, and securing planning permission. Until a permit is granted, that capital is committed but cannot generate income.
Every month of delay increases financing costs and erodes expected returns. Waste operators must simply wait until the permit has been determined before they can generate income through gate fees and potentially from the sale of processed waste and waste-derived products.
When permit determinations are delayed, cash inflows from operations are pushed back, but ongoing costs such as lease payments, loan interest, and staff continue. This high-risk imbalance can strain liquidity, particularly for smaller operators or those expanding existing sites.
Innovative organisations who are typically smaller and survive on external investment, grants or loans are particularly hard-hit by delays. Lengthy permitting processes translate directly into financial impact, including consultant fees and delayed returns on investment.
The EA acknowledges these pressures in its corporate commentary, noting ‘IT and system improvements’ and ‘backlog reduction plans’ are in progress. Applicants often report difficulty obtaining updates or understanding when decisions will be made.
The EA’s move toward digital systems aims to improve transparency and tracking, but these platforms are still developing.
Complexity and evolving technical standards
Waste management is technically diverse. From mechanical-biological treatment to advanced recycling, anaerobic digestion, and waste-to-energy, each process type has its own emissions, monitoring, and environmental risk profile that require bespoke permit conditions.
Recent changes to ‘standard rules’ permits, which are available for lower risk more typical operations, have resulted in limited availability due to strict location-based criteria. Standard rules permits are processed more quickly as they involve simplified permit application and determination processes. More sites moving to bespoke permits has placed additional strain on permitting resources within the EA.
The application of Best Available Techniques (BAT) standards and ‘appropriate measures’ adds another layer of complexity for waste operators. These requirements demand that businesses demonstrate, often in technical detail, how their facility will prevent or minimise emissions to air, land, and water using the most effective and economically viable methods available.
For established waste processes, this may involve aligning operations with sectoral BAT Conclusions, while for newer or more innovative technologies, operators may need to provide bespoke evidence to show equivalence. Interpreting what qualifies as ‘appropriate’ can be challenging, particularly when guidance evolves or when regulators must assess emerging treatment methods not yet covered by published standards.
As a result, additional modelling, site assessments, and iterative dialogue with the regulator are often required, extending the determination timeline and increasing the cost and administrative burden for applicants.
Regulator staff shortages and technical capacity issues also affect permit determination times. For complex environmental assessments, specialist expertise within the regulator’s permitting teams may not always be readily available which has led to extended delays for complex facilities such as novel waste thermal treatment installations.
Consequences for the waste sector
The cumulative effect of these challenges on the waste sector as a whole is significant.
Extended delays and uncertainty in the permitting process have a range of knock-on consequences for the waste industry and its ability to contribute to national resource and decarbonisation objectives:
- Delayed infrastructure investment: Lengthy determination times can postpone the commissioning of new treatment or recycling facilities, slowing the sector’s capacity growth. Investors and developers may defer or withdraw funding if returns become uncertain, leaving critical infrastructure projects on hold.
- Impact on waste regulatory changes: For example, there are a limited number of flexible plastics reprocessing facilities operating in the UK, however, kerbside and business waste collection commences in 2027. If it takes 12-18 months for an operator to receive a permit, new sites may not be available to receive flexible plastics unless they have already submitted their permit application.
- Reduced competitiveness: Companies facing extended permitting timelines can lose ground to competitors who already hold the necessary consents or operate in regions with faster regulatory turnaround. This affects market agility, limits the uptake of innovative technologies, and may push waste streams toward less sustainable management routes such as export.
- Operational uncertainty: Businesses seeking to expand or modify existing facilities must plan around unpredictable decision dates, making it difficult to schedule equipment procurement, staffing, and feedstock contracts. For operators with tight commercial or compliance deadlines, such uncertainty can disrupt long-term planning and increase financial exposure.
- Environmental impact: When low-carbon or advanced recovery projects are delayed, waste may continue to be managed through less efficient routes such as landfill or long-distance export. This not only slows progress toward circular-economy targets but also undermines the UK’s broader Net Zero ambitions by deferring emissions reductions that modern waste infrastructure could deliver.
Together, these effects create a cycle of lost opportunity where environmental benefits, business confidence, and regulatory efficiency are all constrained by the same systemic pressures.
Positive Developments
Despite these challenges, there are encouraging signs of progress. The EA’s scorecard shows success in tackling high-risk illegal waste sites with 24 shut down in Q1 2025–26, exceeding the target of 17, demonstrating continued regulatory focus on compliance.
Meanwhile, digital permitting reforms and backlog recovery initiatives aim to modernise processes and improve service consistency. The proposal to eradicate the historic backlog by March 2026 which is stated in the EA’s scorecard is encouraging.
The Environment Agency together with Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) recently published proposals through a consultation to modernise the environmental permitting framework in England, including streamlining permit requirements, improving regulatory certainty and better supporting innovation in emerging technologies.
The consultation includes industrial and energy sectors as well as waste operations, however the reforms signal a broader intent to reduce complexity, improve turnaround and enhance alignment with business growth-oriented policy goals.
Steps waste operators can take
While the wider challenges in environmental permitting will take time to resolve, waste operators can take proactive steps to minimise delays and improve the likelihood of a successful outcome:
Engage early: Early dialogue with the Environment Agency can help clarify what information, modelling, or assessments will be required before submission. Pre-application discussions are particularly valuable for complex or non-standard activities, allowing applicants to address potential concerns at an early stage and reduce the need for later revisions. However, pre-application may not be available due to the continued pressure on EA staff.
Submit complete, high-quality applications: Feedback from the EA reports that applications issued by waste operators often fall short of the expected standard and don’t include all the information required for efficient determination. Well-structured, technically robust applications demonstrate that the operator understands and can manage environmental risks. Providing clear process descriptions, site plans, and environmental risk assessments reduces the likelihood of requests for further information, which are a major cause of delays in determination. CIWM offers permitting training to help operators improve their applications which was developed in conjunction with the EA’s permitting.
| CIWM’s Environmental Permitting and Exemptions eLearning course provides underpinning knowledge of how to apply to the four UK regulators for a Permit or Waste Management License. The course aims to improve the delegates’ understanding of how to produce a good application, when and how to source external technical support, and provide an overview of what your legal obligations are, when operating under a permit. |
Build realistic timelines with buffer periods: Even straightforward applications can take longer than expected, especially if regulator capacity is stretched or additional data is requested. Building contingency time into project schedules helps manage financial and operational expectations and avoids unnecessary pressure on both the applicant and regulator.
Maintain proactive communication and follow-up: Once an application is submitted, regular and constructive communication with the case officer helps ensure progress and allows issues to be resolved quickly. Responding promptly to queries or requests for clarification demonstrates professionalism and supports an efficient review process.
Seek expert advice for technically complex or novel processes: Specialist permitting consultants or legal advisors can provide valuable insight on how to demonstrate compliance with the EA’s guidance, BAT requirements, and regulator expectations. For innovative waste-treatment or recovery technologies, expert input can help bridge the gap between regulatory precedent and new technical approaches, reducing the risk of prolonged review.
By applying these principles, waste operators can manage their own permitting risks more effectively, reduce avoidable delays, and contribute to a more efficient and collaborative relationship with the regulator.
In summary
For England’s waste industry, the environmental permitting system remains a cornerstone of responsible operation but also a persistent challenge. The latest EA data confirms that processing targets are being missed, particularly for complex applications.
However, the EA’s commitment to process improvement and enforcement reform suggests progress is possible. By preparing robust applications, engaging early, and planning pragmatically, waste operators can navigate the system more effectively and support both compliance and environmental protection.
CIWM’s Environmental Permitting and Exemptions eLearning course provides underpinning knowledge of how to apply to the four UK regulators for a Permit or Waste Management License.
The course aims to improve the delegates’ understanding of how to produce a good application, when and how to source external technical support, and provide an overview of what your legal obligations are, when operating under a permit.