Flexible plastic recycling briefing

Context 

The LGA shares government’s ambition to increase recycling and reduce the amount of waste sent to disposal. As part of the Simpler Recycling reforms, councils in England will be required to collect flexible plastic from all households for recycling from 31 March 2027. Flexible plastic, sometimes referred to as plastic film, covers items like crisp packets, wrappers and plastic bags. To understand the impact of this obligation on local government, the LGA commissioned research from Valpak into the material flows and costs, the capacity of infrastructure to handle the additional material, and the implications for councils. This research highlights significant challenges for councils in delivering this requirement within current timelines. 

Local factors in determining delivery

There are a complex set of decisions for councils to make ahead of the 31 March 2027 deadline to collect flexible plastic from households. Valpak’s research for the LGA and a strategic discussion with the LGA’s Neighbourhoods Committee highlighted the questions and local factors that each council will need to consider:

• Whether there is scope to change or renew long term contracts for sorting and handling recycling, and whether material recovery facilities (MRFs) have the technology and equipment needed to handle plastic films
• Councils will need to evaluate the options for collecting plastic films. It can be collected loose with other material, or residents can be provided with bags which are collected alongside other material. The answer will vary according to local infrastructure, taking into account practical issues such as space to store bags of plastic. Without space for storage there is a risk of plastic ending up in the environment or escaping as litter. 
• Costs will vary considerably depending on existing collection and treatment services, whether plastic film is collected in bags or loose, and levels of participation by householders
• Availability of outlets to send plastic film for recycling. Valpak’s research identified a shortfall in recycling capacity in 2027, although additional capacity is likely to come on stream in the next few years
• Views of residents on the changes required to add new material to household recycling services
• Managing collections from different types of housing stock and areas.  Collection from communal areas will require different solutions, and services for inner cities and rural areas will also need to reflect the needs of those communities. Areas of high density housing such as terraces and HMOs will face increased issues due to the lack of storage. The practicalities of storage, collection and contamination in high-rise developments are very different to traditional kerbside collections and are likely to be a significant barrier to implementation in many cities.
• The risk of contamination: plastic film in the recycling stream could contaminate other material that can be recycled, such as paper and card.

Taken together, these factors mean that there is no single delivery model that will work across all councils. 

The core challenge: national deadline vs local reality

Some councils are already collecting plastic film and will want to continue. Others will be preparing for implementation and have committed to service changes. This progress is positive, but for some councils the reality will be that they cannot find a way to collect plastic film for recycling that is credible with residents or can be done without excessive cost to council budgets. Valpak’s research for the LGA found that 45 local authorities in England are already operating flexible recycling schemes, without a statutory requirement. For an estimate of future plans, Recoup’s household packaging collection survey 2025 found that 1 in 5 are not intending to introduce the service by the 2027 deadline, although this figure excludes councils who are already doing it. 

A nationwide delay to the implementation date could discourage investment in UK recycling infrastructure, which is critical to the future of recycling. The statutory implementation date is beneficial for local government as a sector, as recycling ambitions rest on infrastructure operated by the private sector. However, it is unavoidable that many councils will not meet the deadline and will face much criticism as a result. This creates a fundamental tension: a fixed national deadline supports investment and momentum but does not reflect the reality of local readiness.

Given these constraints, a one-size-fits-all implementation date is not deliverable. Councils should therefore have local flexibility to set a realistic target date for implementation, and national communication needs to support this approach. 

Dealing with non-packaging material

Plastic in household waste is a complex stream that presents many disposal problems, including items like disposable nappies and sanitary waste that are made with plastic components. A significant proportion of plastic film falls outside packaging producer responsibility funding, creating an unfunded cost pressure for councils. Valpak research estimates that 14 per cent of the plastic film in the household waste stream is not packaging, containing items like plastic bags, cling film, and dog waste bags. Government should provide new burdens funding for the cost of non-packaging plastic film. Without new burdens funding councils will have to fund the additional cost from local budgets, which could lead to service reductions and reduce their ability to invest in other waste and recycling initiatives. 

Action to support plastic film recycling 

In the short term, the following enablers would help to maintain progress: 

• front of store collections provided by retailers should continue, particularly in areas where councils are not able to provide kerbside collections
• access to funding for further trials and innovation. Councils want to bring about innovation and local solutions, as demonstrated by the councils taking part in the FlexCollect pilots. This should also include funding for new facilities to provide additional sorting and recycling capacity. 

In the medium to long term action is needed to put plastic recycling on a sustainable economic footing. The current economic model for plastic recycling struggles to achieve commercial viability, undermining investment and long-term sustainability. This is evident in the decisions of companies like Biffa and Viridor to close UK plastic recycling facilities. The lack of recycling infrastructure creates a real risk that councils will collect plastic from households as a recycling service, but will have to send it to landfill, incineration or for export overseas. Without an end market to drive demand and investment, other interventions are needed. Government must look at the policy levers that will allow recycled plastic to compete with virgin plastic on price and set out an action plan. The plastic packaging tax, producer responsibility (the packaging Extended Responsibility Scheme), and the scheme of packaging recovery notes must all be focused on stimulating investment in UK recycling infrastructure. 

Reducing unnecessary plastic in the first place is the best environmental outcome. This will require action by producers, retailers and consumers, although government will also have a role in regulation, as we have seen in bans on single use plastic items like straws and stirrers, keeping them out of litter and the natural environment.

Communications

Communication will be critical to the success of implementation. Councils are worried about the risk of losing public confidence in the likely scenario that material put out for recycling by residents is sent to waste disposal. A one size fits all approach will not work, as there will be local variation in implementation dates. It will not help if residents are getting mixed messages from government and their local councils. We want to work with government to co-design a communication plan to support plastic recycling. 

Conclusion

Flexible plastic collections are an important step towards improving recycling, but successful implementation depends on aligning national ambition with local delivery realities. Without this, there is a risk of increased costs, public confusion, and damage to confidence in the recycling system.

Summary of recommendations:

• Provide local flexibility for implementation dates, supported by national communication. A national implementation date can cause bottlenecks in the supply of equipment as seen in the roll out of mandatory weekly food waste collections. It is also risks councils bidding against each other for limited recycling capacity. Instead, government should consider a staged rollout based on the availability of infrastructure. Organising the roll out on a regional basis would be far more deliverable. 
• New burdens funding must be provided to cover the cost of non-packaging plastic film.
• Continue front of store collections until local collections are fully established.
• Support local government to carry out further trials and innovation, through access to funding.
• Government should set out a national plan to secure growth and investment in plastic recycling.
• Design effective communication to residents, co-produced by central and local government.
• This is a system-wide problem, and councils must not be exposed to the risk of financial penalties if they cannot meet the statutory collection duty.