This week, I’ve been reflecting on two very different experiences in the world of waste management and regulation.
On one hand, we have the shocking case reported by the BBC where a mountain of waste was dumped illegally in a field – fly-tipping on an industrial scale.
It’s blatant criminality, causing environmental harm and undermining public trust in the system. The individuals involved will likely disappear, leaving the burden with taxpayers and landowners.
On the other hand, we’ve just spent three full days at a Public Inquiry scrutinising a highly competent operator who has invested in WRAP-supported (Waste and Resources Action Programme) technology to recycle construction and demolition waste into quality aggregates.
This business has operated under permit for over a decade, with rigorous systems for compliance, testing and sustainability.
There’s no evidence of pollution, no complaints, and yet the operator faces enforcement action over theoretical risks and interpretative debates about trommel screening – issues that have never been raised in 12 years of inspections.
The contrast is stark. One case represents real harm, while the other is a technical argument that risks suppressing innovation and the circular economy.
The problem with disproportionate enforcement
When regulation becomes disproportionate, focusing on “what if” scenarios rather than evidence, it diverts resources from tackling genuine environmental crime. Worse, it creates uncertainty for businesses doing the right thing.
If the goal is protecting the environment and human health, shouldn’t enforcement priorities reflect actual risk?
Cases like these inevitably raise the question of whether the system is still fit for purpose or whether responsible businesses are being subjected to unnecessary pressure while enforcement efforts do little to deter environmental crime.
Our specialist team are experts in regulatory matters and can support you with any compliance concerns. Contact John Dyne today for help.