UK prime minister Andy Burnham has promised to clean up three of the worst illegal waste dumps in England and sign off new measures to tackle the problem more widely.

The pledge is bold, but it is also unlikely to solve the problem on its own.

Illegal waste sites and fly‑tipping is now widespread in the UK, and globally.

They are not just local eyesores. They are public health hazards, environmental damage, and a symbol of organised criminal activity. They cost councils millions. They poison soils and waterways. They also erode trust in government. Any plan that ignores the full picture will fail.

What Burnham has proposed

Burnham’s announcement commits resources to clear three of the worst sites and to work with councils and police to tackle the problem. The aim is immediate clean‑ups and stronger local coordination. This is welcome. Quick action on visible sites helps communities and restores confidence. But the plan as described lacks the scale and tools needed to stop the flow of illegal waste in the long term.

Fly‑tipping is the illegal dumping of waste on land without a licence. Illegal waste sites are larger, often semi‑permanent locations where waste is stored, processed or burned outside regulatory control. These activities range from small household dumping to organised operations run by criminal networks. The latter are the most damaging and the hardest to stop.

English local authorities dealt with 1.26 million fly-tipping incidents in 2024-25, a 9% increase from the previous year.

For decades, local authorities have borne the cost of clearing dumped waste. Budget cuts since 2010 reduced council capacity for enforcement and waste services.

At the same time, regulatory gaps and weak sentencing created an environment where organised waste crime could flourish. Criminal groups exploit low enforcement, transport networks and demand for cheap disposal. The result is more illegal sites and higher clean‑up bills for councils.

What Burnham needs to add

Burnham’s current approach treats symptoms, not causes. Cleaning up three sites is necessary but not sufficient. Without cutting off the supply chain – illegal collection, transport and disposal – new sites will appear.

But the current plan lacks sustained funding. Effective action needs long‑term investment in enforcement teams, surveillance, legal support and prosecution. Short‑term funding can clear sites but cannot sustain the multi‑year operations needed to dismantle organised waste crime. Councils already report rising costs and limited budgets for pursuing fly-tippers.

Enforcement is currently fragmented. Responsibility is split across councils, the Environment Agency as well as the police and private sector actors. Burnham has said the National Crime Agency will work more closely with the Environment Agency in England, but this could still create gaps that criminals exploit.

Successful disruption requires a single, well‑resourced taskforce with investigative powers and rapid legal follow through. Past local initiatives without national backing have struggled to keep pace.

Sentences for serious waste crime are often too light to deter organised groups. To help tackle this Burnham has said fines will rise from £300 to a maximum of £5,000. But prosecutions are complex and slow. Without tougher, faster legal consequences, the economics could still favour illegal operators.

Tougher sentencing and fast‑track courts should be put in place. Pushing for tougher sentencing guidelines for serious waste crime and specialist courts to speed cases is needed. Swift, certain punishment deters more than occasional heavy fines.

---

Read more: Criminal fly-tipping gangs are costing governments millions – AI and drones can help track waste dumpers

---

What would work?

A national waste‑crime taskforce with investigative powers, forensic capability and a legal team to secure rapid prosecutions could reduce offending. This could be modelled on successful multi‑agency units used against other organised crimes.

The government should target the money being made by these gangs. This could include freezing or seizing profits from illegal operations. These recovered funds could be used for clean‑ups and community prevention. Greater financial consequences for the criminals are likely to deter organised fly tipping.

Investment is also needed in understanding behaviour, prevention and legal disposal. Subsidising safe, low‑cost waste disposal options for households and small businesses would also help as well as licensing and tracking of waste carriers. When legal disposal is affordable and traceable, illegal options are likely to shrink.

Funding local rapid‑response teams and anonymous reporting lines would be another means of attacking the problem. Community intelligence often leads to the best leads. This should be combined with AI, drones, CCTV and vehicle tracking to catch offenders in the act.

There are some pilot schemes that show success. The Keep Britain Tidy group worked with Newham council in London to add stickers to illegally dumped waste and bring it to public attention. This resulted in an average 64% reduction in fly-tipping incidents, with over half of residents reporting they had noticed the intervention.

Burnham’s pledge to clear three sites is a good start. It will help communities and draw attention to a national crisis. But it will not halt the problem.

The question now is whether political plans will match the scale of the crime. If it does, a successful national model could emerge. If it does not, the clean‑ups will be temporary – and the next illegal site will already be being planned.

Ian Williams receives funding from UK Research Councils, including the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and its Impact Acceleration Account.

When you think of advanced futuristic clothing, what comes to mind?

Perhaps shirts that can detect and alert users to low blood glucose levels or socks that can track your running form, step count and speed? What about pyjamas that observe subtle bodily changes while you sleep leading to early detection of cancer or warn carers of imminent seizures? Imagine if all these were items that required no external power source, just the energy generated by your own body.

Although these products are not in the shops yet that day is not far off.

Researchers are already designing advanced textiles that look exactly like regular clothes or fabrics but come with with embedded electronic functions. These are referred to as electronics textiles, e-textiles or smart fabrics.

E-textiles integrate sensing, computation and power into fabrics so that the threads themselves become the sensors and the stitches become the circuits. These textiles can monitor health, temperature, motion and air quality. They can communicate wirelessly and harvest various forms of energy.

University and industry prototypes are currently progressing through clinical trials and are being tested outside labs. The global market for e-textiles is projected to reach over US$15 billion (£11.14 billion) by 2028.

Developments in e-textiles will revolutionise the way humanity views clothing; but at what cost?

A new type of waste

Electronic waste is the fastest growing EU waste stream with a record 62 million tonnes discarded in 2022.

Another 92 million tonnes of waste is generated globally from textiles; a figure expected to reach 134 million by 2030. Textiles alone account for 6.7% of global greenhouse gas emissions with the average European discarding a staggering 11kg of textiles per year.

Electronic textiles will bring a new kind of hybrid waste. E‑textiles commonly use mixed polymers, metal nanoparticle inks, and include components that create fire hazards within conventional textile recycling.

They can release toxic residues if incinerated or landfilled. This results in hazardous and precious materials becoming trapped within garments, leading not only to environmental and health problems, but to a loss of vital resources such as graphene and rare-earth elements. Silver, for instance, is used in conductive yarns, antimicrobial coatings, sensors and electrodes. We need to work out how to recover it because it is valuable as well as toxic to aquatic life in some forms.

So, it’s currently very difficult to recover the valuable materials used in smart clothing, after the shirt or socks are discarded.

At the current rate of e-textile growth, current disposal methods will need to change to cope with these new materials; particularly in the areas of reusability and recyclability.

The EU’s sustainable and circular textiles strategy is part of the EU’s plan to become the first climate-neutral continent. Regulators are now demanding clearer rules on recyclability, chemical safety and product lifespans, and starting to ask how e‑textiles will meet these requirements.

Industry practice is catching up more widely, and placing more responsibility on clothing producers. Digital product passports (these carry information about the materials and their environmental impact) and new recycling technologies are scaling up. These shifts mean manufacturers could face legal and commercial risk if they don’t consider the long-term impact of these products.

Preventing more waste

The good news is that sustainable e‑textiles are an engineering problem with practical solutions. Key measures that industry and funders could adopt now include:

1. design for disassembly. Removable electronic parts help separate electronics from textiles for recycling

2. material passports and transparency. Digital records of various components (such as polymers, inks and batteries) that enable safe sorting and recovery

3. biodegradable and recyclable conductors. Prioritising conductors free from precious metals and using alternatives such as screen printable carbon paste and recyclable conductive inks and yarns

4. energy-first design. Integrating textile energy harvesting (for instance, solar, thermoelectric, piezo/triboelectric nanogenerators) to reduce or eliminate batteries. Some garments embed antennas and wireless power receivers to avoid bulky batteries

5. standards for washability, durability and end-of-life testing. To ensure products survive real-world use and can be repaired rather than discarded.

None of these are optional extras: they determine whether e‑textiles become a public good or a new environmental liability. University research groups and industry consortia are starting to demonstrate printable, stretchable components and trial wireless power that reduce battery dependence, for instance. Printable, stretchable components are flexible electronic parts printed onto fabric that keep working as the textile bends and stretches. They make smart clothing comfortable, lightweight, washable and able to move naturally with the body.

Unless policymakers and industry players adopt sustainable design now, e-textiles could add a dangerous new layer to our global electronic waste mountain.

Governments need to set clear rules on recyclability and chemical safety for e‑textiles. University researchers must find methods to make e-textiles functional, affordable, sustainable and safe. Brands must publish material details and repair guides and ensure sustainable practices are being adhered to throughout their supply chain.

Investors should not fund throwaway novelty. Standards bodies must define test methods for washing, wear and end‑of‑life recovery.

These steps will steer the market toward durable, repairable and recyclable products that could change lives for the better.

Ian Williams receives funding from UK Research Councils, including the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and its Impact Acceleration Account.

Christina Webb receives funding from UK Research Councils, including the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).

Stephen Beeby receives funding from UK Research Councils, including the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC).