The Environment Agency has opened an England-only consultation on a proposed inert waste framework for recycled aggregate used in construction and civil engineering. Published on 16th October 2026, the draft would replace the older quality protocol once a final version is agreed and brought into use.
This is a consultation, not a change already in force. Responses close on 8th January 2027, and the Agency says it will use them to decide the final requirements. The existing quality protocol can continue to be used while the revision is under way. It would cease to provide the recognised route only after a replacement resource framework is published.
The practical point is bigger than a change of label. Producers could face mandatory independent certification, annual audits, tighter controls on incoming waste, defined testing and four years of records. Contractors, developers and clients buying recycled aggregate would need to understand what evidence sits behind a product described as no longer being waste. I would treat this as an operational compliance proposal, not simply an environmental policy document.
What the inert waste framework would require
The Environment Agency consultation concerns when aggregate recovered from inert waste can meet the legal test for “end of waste”. Once that test is met, the material may be supplied as a product without the waste management controls that would otherwise apply to its storage, movement and use.
The draft is deliberately specific. It says aggregate would have to be made only from listed inert waste streams, conform to the British Standard appropriate to its intended use, be produced under Factory Production Control and need no further processing before use. There would also have to be certainty that the material will actually be used in a permitted construction or civil engineering market.
The proposed inert waste framework would cover unbound uses such as sub-base, capping, general fill, pipe bedding and drainage. It would also cover bound applications, including concrete, asphalt and hydraulically bound mixtures, provided the relevant standards and specifications are met.
That does not remove every regulatory duty. The draft says producers would still need an environmental permit, exemption or other authorisation covering the storage and processing of inert waste. Planning permission and an environmental permit are separate approvals, as Planning Geek’s earlier report on Environment Agency planning responses explains. Meeting the framework would address the status of the finished aggregate, not legalise an unauthorised waste operation.
Some inputs are excluded or tightly restricted
The permitted input table includes specified forms of concrete, bricks, tiles, ceramics, glass, bituminous mixtures, stone, track ballast and certain mechanically treated minerals. Each entry carries its own restrictions. Asphalt containing coal tar is excluded, for example, while glass must be free from prohibited components and contamination.
One of the clearest limits is on soil and clay. The draft states that clays and soils are not acceptable input materials for the framework. Stone under the relevant construction waste code must not include soil, while dredging material would qualify only where it consists of granular, non-cohesive inert aggregate from fluvial, estuarine or canal dredging.
Mixed construction and demolition waste would not receive an open-ended route. Under the draft it would be accepted only where generated from utilities trenching or where it consists of sub-base aggregate. Physical contaminants such as wood, plastic, rubber, metal, peat or silt may occur incidentally, but they would have to be removed during processing so the finished product meets the required constituent limits.
This is why the inert waste framework matters at the point material arrives, not merely when the finished aggregate leaves. Every load would have to be visually inspected on receipt and again after tipping. Producers would need site-specific acceptance criteria and a recorded procedure for rejecting, quarantining or disposing of material that does not comply.
Independent certification is the largest shift
The most commercially significant proposal is compulsory certification by an approved third-party scheme. The draft names schemes operated by Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE) and Green Compass, but marks both as subject to Environment Agency approval. Certification would need to confirm compliance with the framework and the relevant British Standard, with at least one on-site audit each year.
The Environment Agency says it is consulting on whether the requirements for achieving end-of-waste status have been met. Its published invitation is direct: “We want your views on the proposed framework”. That question gives producers, testing bodies, contractors and major aggregate buyers a real reason to examine the detail rather than respond only to the broad principle.
Scheme rules would have to include reporting of non-compliance to the Environment Agency, an impartial committee and accreditation to the relevant international certification standard through the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. The draft therefore proposes a much more formal assurance chain than a producer simply asserting that material has been processed correctly.
Records of incoming waste would include the code and description, source, delivery date, supplier, carrier and the method used to decide whether the load was acceptable. Outgoing documentation would identify the product, production site, quantity, customer, applicable aggregate standard and any extra customer specification. Records would generally have to be kept for at least four years.
The proposed inert waste framework also specifies minimum testing frequencies. Common checks include particle size, moisture, resistance to fragmentation, flakiness, constituent classification and contamination. Concrete applications would require additional testing such as particle density, water absorption, freeze-thaw resistance, sulphur and chlorides.
Product status could be lost again
Passing the test would not give the material permanent non-waste status in every circumstance. The draft says compliant aggregate becomes waste again if it is discarded, intended or required to be discarded, or stored indefinitely with little prospect of use. Certified stockpiles without a realistic market would therefore remain a regulatory problem.
Mixing also matters. If compliant aggregate is mixed with waste, the whole mixed volume becomes waste and waste controls apply. Mixing it with another non-waste material would not, by itself, be classed as further treatment under the proposed framework.
The territorial limit needs care. The new inert waste framework would apply only in England. The Environment Agency’s wider framework collection notes that existing quality protocols can have different territorial coverage. Producers moving material across borders would also need to check how the destination authority classifies it, because England’s view does not bind another country.
What happens next
The consultation is open until 8th January 2027 through the Environment Agency’s consultation platform. The complete draft resource framework runs to 19 pages and should be read by anyone who produces, certifies, specifies or buys recycled aggregate.
The Agency has been reviewing the aggregates quality protocol since October 2020. Its quality protocols review says the old document needs revision, while also confirming that industry may continue to use it until a new framework is agreed or the revision ends without resolution.
I would focus consultation responses on workable evidence. Are the permitted inputs drawn correctly? Are the testing frequencies proportionate to risk and production volume? Can smaller operators obtain certification without being priced out, and will purchasers receive enough information to rely confidently on the material?
The final inert waste framework could give the market greater confidence in recycled aggregate, but only if its controls are credible and usable. Until the Environment Agency publishes a final framework, this remains a proposal. Producers should continue following the existing rules and avoid presenting the draft requirements as settled law or current permission to treat material as a product.
0 Comments