The background to a FOI request
In 2018 I began writing ‘Recycle Angel’ a novel, aimed at the younger audience. To gather information for it I met WILL, Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council’s Waste Manager, in October 2019. Will looked relaxed when we talked about business waste and my wish to speak about it with businesses, however he did not want me to talk with them. Changing the subject I asked what the Council did with its recycling? I couldn’t believe it when he told me it is sent it to Ireland to be sorted. To me that sounded counter productive. Recycling is to reduce emissions but sending stuff to Ireland, about 300 miles away, must use lots of fuel and create lots of emissions and surely it should be sent to a Material Recycling Facility nearer Redcar. He assured me they were looking for somewhere else to send it.
We talked briefly about bin tagging, because the man employed to do the tagging joined us, but we reverted to recycling again and he gave me advice to share: no electrical equipment, black bin bags or nappies in the recycling and wash out milk cartons. As a last minute thought he informed me of a specification for testing recycling, which based on my experience in quality control and quality assurance meant the recycling testers inspected the recycling and based on the contamination they saw would pass it or fail it.
Redcar & Cleveland (R&C) found a new sorting facility owned by Cumbria Waste Management in South Bank. Together with Middlesbrough they struck a 3 year, £10m deal with Cumbria Waste and began delivering their recycling to South Bank in 2021.
It is significant that at the time recycling was sent to Ireland the authority had a Recycling Rate around 40% but it fell to about 30% when it was sent to the South Bank MRF in 2022 and although I believe the facility has changed hands once or twice the recycling rate did not improve.
Guisborough Eco Group formed in 2022 arranged a visit to the South Bank facility.
With the intension of seeing how the facility worked the Guisborough Eco Group arranged a site visit to the South Bank MRF. Comparing the facility with others on the internet it did not look as good. We saw a conveyor and a test station but did not see what should have been the most interesting aspect of sorting, the electro magnet used to separate aluminium and the permanent magnet used to separate steel tins. I was informed that the electro magnet was not working.
Contamination test specification
Before sending the FOI I looked up what the EU says about a contamination test specification then requested some information in the FOI.
The questions and answers given to the FOIs sent to R&C on behalf of Guisborough Eco Group, are below:
Comments
The answers look hasty.
It appears that Redcar and Cleveland considers the recycling contamination specification is Not Applicable and has not changed over time.
AI may make mistakes, however it shows that Redcar and Cleveland have a no contamination specification other than NO ACCEPTABLE CONTAMINATION PERCENTAGE. That can be interpreted as ZERO TOLERANCE in which case recycling would have to be absolutely clean to be sent for recycling.
The WasteDataFlow Management website does not lend itself to searching for the required information. AI can make mistakes but it showed the website may not contain the required information.
Conclusion
I find it difficult to draw conclusions. The information does not satisfy the request for information and an internal review has been requested.
I have been asked for further information.
I hope my comments above will suffice.
Ref:
Recycle Angel Copyright © 2026 by Fred PageISBN 978-1-3999-1259-4 Published by Fred Page available on Amazon
Copyright © 2026 by Fred Page
Best wishes
Fred
The council response is copied below, however I have rewritten the questions (marked Q) and answers (marked A) below the response as I feel they are easier to read.
Reply from Redcar & Cleveland to Our Ref: EIR/2627/0067
8 July 2026
Dear Mr Page
Letter confirming the outcome of internal review.
I write following your email concerning the Council’s approach to your Environmental Information Regulations request.
I confirm that our Principal Legal Officer (“the Reviewing Officer”) has now conducted a review and this letter is to confirm the outcome of it.
Your Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) request asked various questions in relation to where recycling was / is sorted and the recycling contamination test specifications percentages in the period from 2018 to present.
The response dated 12 June 2026 stated that the Council holds some of the information you requested. Answers to some questions were provided whilst others were not held. Some of the answers were supplied via a link to where the information was already publicly available and therefore exempt from disclosure under Regulation 6(1)(b).
In your request for review you have asked questions regarding the Response. The Reviewing Officer, having discussed the matter with the Service Lead – Waste & Fleet Services, makes the following comments and / or changes to the response:
Please can you let me know where the authority sent its recycling to be sorted in 2018?
This question was answered (under Reg 6(1)(b)) with a link to where the data is already publicly available, namely WasteDataFlow Waste Management. It is noted in your request for a review that you think that the Waste Data Flow Management website does not lend itself to searching for the required information. Unfortunately, the Reviewing Officer is advised that the Council’s registration on the site shows a different version from when a member of the public registers, so it is difficult to givespecific advice. However, he is informed that you can contact Waste Data Flow directly for assistance.
If applicable, What contamination level (%) re cardboard, plastic, aluminium cans, metal tins and glass was agreed acceptable with the authority at the time?
This question was answered as “The materials stated are not classed as contamination” due to a misunderstanding by the Responding Officer. However, the Reviewing Officer is advised that contamination rate is a general rate associated across all the tonnage we collect monthly. In terms of contamination there isn’t a set rate or percentage for a load to be rejected. For every 70 tonnes collected a sample of 70kg is taken and that sample checked for non-target materials – the target materials are stated in the contract and are:
Paper
Cardboard & cartons
Plastic tubs, containers, bottles & trays
Cans – steel & aluminium
Glass bottles & jars
Did the authority change from that sorting location to South Bank in 2021 or 2022?
The response confirmed that this is available publicly on WasteDataFlow Waste Management, however, the answer is 2021.
How many times has the South Bank MFR changed ownership since that time?
This question was answered as information not held and it is correct to say that the information is not specifically stored anywhere by the Council. However, it is understood that ownership has changed twice.
Has the agreed test specification re contamination changed over the time?
This was answered as No which is correct
Did the South Bank MRF have magnets for separating tins and aluminium can when it came online?
Again, this answer “Yes” is correct.
What new equipment has been installed since it came online, and when was it installed?
This question was answered as Information not held by the Council which the Reviewing Officer is satisfied is correct.
If applicable, What contamination level (%) re cardboard, plastic, aluminium cans, metal tins and glass was agreed with the authority during 2018 to present?
Again, this question was answered “The materials stated are not classed as contamination” due to a misunderstanding by the Responding Officer. More detail is provided above butultimately the answer is that contamination levels are dealt with as above and not by a percentage level.
Has the contamination test specification level (%) changed over the period 2018 to 2026?
This question was answered as “The test specification hasn’t changed” which the Reviewing Officer is satisfied is correct.
In all the circumstances, the Reviewing Officer is satisfied that the response made to the Environmental Information Regulations request 2627/0067 is now correct. We apologise that some detail was not included in the original response.
If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire
SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely,
Information Governance Team
.
My Review:
It is disappointing/concerning that the original respondent thought that I thought cardboard etc is contamination and based their response on that misunderstanding. However the second respondent cleared that up and contrary to the information I was given in 2019 rejection is not based on % of contamination but inspection of 0.1% recycling for non-recyclables.
I want to be confident that the council is fully conversant with its customers and what those customers will do with the recycling that it presents for treatment/inspection? WasteDataFlow Waste Management given in answer to my questions does not give me confidence and I am grateful that the Information Governance Team have given me the contact details of the Information Commissioner.
Below I have rewritten the questions (marked Q) and the answers (marked A) as I feel they are easier to read.
Q. Please can you let me know where the authority sent its recycling to be sorted in 2018?
A. WasteDataFlow Waste Management. However the response includes this advice: Unfortunately, the Reviewing Officer is advised that the Council’s registration on the site shows a different version from when a member of the public registers, so it is difficult to give specific advice. However, he is informed that you can contact Waste Data Flow directly for assistance.
Q. If applicable, What contamination level (%) re cardboard, plastic, aluminium cans, metal tins and glass was agreed acceptable with the authority at the time?
A. This question was answered as “The materials stated are not classed as contamination” due to a misunderstanding by the Responding Officer. However, the Reviewing Officer is advised that contamination rate is a general rate associated across all the tonnage we collect monthly. In terms of contamination there isn’t a set rate or percentage for a load to be rejected. For every 70 tonnes collected a sample of 70kg is taken and that sample checked for non-target materials – the target materials are stated in the contract and are:
Paper
Cardboard & cartons
Plastic tubs, containers, bottles & trays
Cans – steel & aluminium
Glass bottles & jars
Q. Did the authority change from that sorting location to South Bank in 2021 or 2022?
A. The response confirmed that this is available publicly on WasteDataFlow Waste Management, however, the answer is 2021.
Q. How many times has the South Bank MFR changed ownership since that time? (meaning since 2021)
A. This question was answered as information not held and it is correct to say that the information is not specifically stored anywhere by the Council. However, it is understood that ownership has changed twice.
Q. Has the agreed test specification re contamination changed over the time?
A. This was answered as No which is correct
Q. Did the South Bank MRF have magnets for separating tins and aluminium can when it came online?
A. Again, this answer “Yes” is correct.
Q. What new equipment has been installed since it came online, and when was it installed?
A. This question was answered as Information not held by the Council which the Reviewing Officer is satisfied is correct.
Q. If applicable, What contamination level (%) re cardboard, plastic, aluminium cans, metal tins and glass was agreed with the authority during 2018 to present?
A. Again, this question was answered “The materials stated are not classed as contamination” due to a misunderstanding by the Responding Officer. More detail is provided above but ultimately the answer is that contamination levels are dealt with as above and not by a percentage level.
Q. Has the contamination test specification level (%) changed over the period 2018 to 2026?
A. This question was answered as “The test specification hasn’t changed” which the Reviewing Officer is satisfied is correct.
FAO The Information Commissioner
Information Commissioner’s Office,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire
SK9 5AF.
REQUEST TO REVIEW FOI EIR/2627/0067
Dear Commissioner,
I am Fred Page, cofounder of Guisborough Eco Group. Redcar & Cleveland (R&C) authority sends its recycling to the South Bank Material Recycling Facility (MRF) to be treated/tested. I sent in a Freedom of Information (FOI) and the response and review give the impression that the authority does not to know who owns the MRF. I am concerned about that and that it may not be operating in the best interests of the authority.
The council’s reference for my FOI is EIR/2627/0067.
Date of the response to my FOI is 12.6.26 and the review is dated 8 July 2026.
I write the Guisboroughecogroup.co.uk BLOG and the details of this process are recored in the post:
You will see that I felt the response to my FOI was hasty and the review does not give me confidence. It states:
‘In all the circumstances, the Reviewing Officer is satisfied that the response made to the Environmental Information Regulations request EIR/2627/0067 is now correct. We apologise that some detail was not included in the original response’.
In defence of the MRF the original owner Cumbria Waste Management who R&C and Middlesbrough council paid £10m for a 3 year contract in 2021 and could be described as a circular economy company that passes and fails recycling and manufactures Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) made from commercial and municipal waste, such as failed recycling, has changed hands twice.
One of my major concerns is the reduction in Recycling Rate that has been recorded from 2019 to present. In 2019 R&C sent its recycling to Ireland to be sorted and its Recycling Rate was above 40%, since changing to the South Bank MRF the Recycling Rate has consistently been about 30%. The procedure for testing recycling is explained and I perceive it to mean ‘take a 70kg sample from 70,000kg, look for non-recyclables and if there any reject the whole 70,000kg. I am left wondering if the owners have operated in the best interest of the Council?
If I can be of any further help please let me know.
Looking forward to hearing from you
Leave a Reply