Cardiff High Court will hear the case for the Judicial Review into the legality of co-mingled collections on Monday (25 February), bringing the case forward by one day.

The three-day hearing will include representations from Tim Straker QC on behalf of the claimants (six members of the Campaign for Real Recycling (CRR)) and Clive Lewis QC on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Welsh Government.

The case centres around Defra and the Welsh Government’s transposition of the European Commission’s (EC) revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD) into the Waste Regulations (England and Wales) 2011.

The revised transposition – Defra and the Welsh Government’s second attempt of drafting the government’s Waste Regulations amendment – came into force on 1 October 2012.

It states that local authorities will need to run separate collections of dry recyclables by 2015 (as specified in the EC directive), but maintains that co-mingled collections are acceptable as long as separate collections are not technically, environmentally and economically practicable (TEEP) and as long as the right quality of recyclates is achieved.

According to the CRR, England and Wales’s permission of co-mingled collection systems could “permanently undermine the environmental and financial benefits of recycling”. The CRR argues that the transposition is “contrary to both the wording and spirit of the rWFD and therefore not a transposition of it”.

‘Looking forward to the resolution’

Commenting for the CRR, Chair Mal Williams said: “We are looking forward to the resolution of the review or to whatever progress next week’s hearing brings. We maintain that separate collections, as required by the Waste Framework Directive, are the best way forward in both economic and environmental terms.

“This hearing represents an opportunity to clarify what constitutes separate collection and high-quality recycling. It will enable UK reprocessing industry and councils to move forward, confident that we are compliant with the directive, maximising value from discarded materials and thereby working toward the recycling society that the directive envisages.

“Some changes may be needed as a result of this review, and this may not be welcome news for everyone. However we feel certain that these will be changes toward better value for money and resources, as evidenced by government reports, and that local authorities and communities will see more and real benefits over time.”

Speaking on behalf of Anthony Collins Solicitors, acting on behalf of the claimants, partner Hilary Harrison said: “Our client, UK Recyclate, is seeking a Judicial Review of the Waste (Amendment) Regulations 2012, because it feels that it does not accurately represent the EU Waste Framework Directive in UK law.

“Approximately half of councils in England and Wales use co-mingling methods of recycling, which results in a large amount of recyclate being rejected by reprocessing organisations due to contamination. Closer adherence to EU legislation will greatly improve the quality of material able to be recycled and drastically reduce the current level of materials that end up in landfills.

“Despite current financial challenges, councils across the UK are taking every effort to encourage their communities to recycle effectively, and an amendment to the current legislation will ensure that their endeavours are not wasted.

“Whilst it will take several weeks to receive judgment from this hearing, we hope that the conclusion of this case will provide local authorities and the UK reprocessing industry with the clarity they need to plan for the future. ”

Concerns over collection changes

Some waste management companies and councils have voiced concern over the prospective changes to recycling collections should it be deemed necessary for all councils in the UK introduce separation at source for dry recyclables.

Waste management company Biffa said: “Local authorities should be the ones to decide how their local recycling and refuse should be collected. They must be allowed to have the freedom to choose the collection system that best meets their local needs, be it co-mingling or separation.

“The important focus, from the directive’s perspective, should be on achieving high levels of recycling that produce material that is reused or reprocessed.”

Biffa’s Municipal Development Director Pete Dickson, added that though Biffa is not anti-separation, “it’s not right or best for everyone”.

Joss Presland, Waste and Engineering Services Manager with Cannock Chase District Council, said: “The council is worried about the Judicial Review as a decision against co-mingling would have a significant impact upon the council’s finances and the success of its current dry recycling collection service.”

‘Dirty’ MRFs ‘will feel the brunt of this review’

However, Tara Dumas, Waste and Environmental Services Manager at Wirral Borough Council, said that the council was ‘not worried’ about the review, nor the impact any potential changes would have on recycling rates.

She said: “We are not worried about the review because I believe that, at worst, we may have to remove glass, which means we can add other things. The high quality we achieve is far superior to dirty MRF processes that could well feel the brunt of this review.”

“As to our recycling rate, hopefully there would be no change as we would go to weekly and add food waste, so there may even be a net increase”, she added.