By WasteSignal · England, Scotland and Wales
On this page
Publicly accessible waste information can help with research and reporting, but access alone does not settle how you may reuse it. Check the terms attached to the actual dataset or document before copying it into a report, sharing it with clients or publishing it through a commercial service.
Identify what you want to do and which information you need. An internal comparison, a client export and a publicly searchable database can raise different questions under the source’s conditions. Keep the licence evidence with the data so the people preparing the final output can see its permitted use.
This guide explains practical checks for businesses using information about England, Scotland and Wales. The waste data and digital tracking pillar covers the wider sources. Seek appropriate advice or clarification from the rights holder where the intended use or terms are uncertain.
Does a public download mean the data is open for every use?
Read the specific licence statement and any additional conditions. A website footer may describe the general website content while the dataset record states different terms. Check the record, supplied documentation and any referenced licence together before drawing a conclusion.
The Environment Agency’s English waste data guidance illustrates this distinction. It identifies a conditional licence for the Waste Data Interrogator and an Open Government Licence for the hazardous waste interrogator. The fact that both are published by the same regulator does not make their conditions interchangeable.
Record the dataset title and version you actually intend to use. If a colleague supplies a spreadsheet without its source page, find that information before redistribution. A filename and an informal assurance that it came from a government website are insufficient to establish the applicable rights.
What does the Open Government Licence allow?
The Open Government Licence version 3.0 permits copying, adaptation and commercial or non-commercial exploitation of information offered under it, subject to its conditions. Attribution is required, and the licence has exclusions, including personal data and specified third-party rights. It does not permit an implication of official endorsement.
Check that the actual information is offered under that licence. Then use the provider’s attribution statement, or the licence’s required default where no specific statement is supplied. Keep the attribution accessible in the output rather than leaving it only in a private working file.
Where your report combines several sources, identify which statement belongs to each. A shared acknowledgements page can be useful, but it must still meet the relevant conditions. Ask the person preparing the final publication to check the wording and links after layout changes, when attribution can otherwise be dropped accidentally.
How does the Environment Agency Conditional Licence differ?
The Environment Agency Conditional Licence must be read with the dataset abstract and any special conditions. Its general permissions do not cancel source-specific restrictions. It requires attention to warnings and attribution and prohibits misleading others or misrepresenting the information or its source.
Read the metadata alongside the licence. Check the intended use, any duration limits and conditions affecting sharing. Save a dated record of the terms you considered and ask the Agency about anything unclear.
Do not assume that a colleague’s permitted internal use extends automatically to publication on your website. Give the proposed output a separate rights check, especially if it exposes individual records or allows customers to download them. The required permission depends on the actual source terms and proposed use.
What conditions apply to the current Waste Data Interrogator?
As reviewed on 12 October 2026, the 2024 Waste Data Interrogator record specifies the EA Conditional Licence with special conditions. These describe internal or personal use and a one-year permitted-use period. Sublicensing requires a written licence carrying the relevant conditions and cannot allow a longer period than the user has received.
The record also explains that restrictions protect others’ rights or confidentialities, and invites written contact about extending use rights where possible. It preserves use authorised by statute or not requiring a licence. Read the complete terms before deciding how they apply to your proposal; they are not a blanket Open Government Licence.
For a proposed commercial database, client redistribution or wider publication, obtain clarification of the necessary rights from the Agency before proceeding. Record the response with the relevant dataset. The one-year licence period concerns permitted use; it should not be renamed as a universal statutory retention period for waste records.
What should your reuse record contain?
Create a short record tied to the source and intended output. Include the publisher, dataset title, relevant version and source link. Record the licence and special conditions, the attribution required and the person who checked the proposed use.
Describe what will happen to the data. For example, say whether staff will analyse it internally, whether clients will receive extracts or whether the public will see individual records. That description helps a rights holder answer a clarification request and lets colleagues spot a later change in scope.
Keep unanswered questions visible. A completed download should not be mistaken for a completed licensing review. Where permission is time-limited or purpose-specific, identify who will manage that condition and how the team will avoid extending the use informally when another department requests a copy.
How should you handle personal information in public records?
Check whether the material identifies living people, including through a combination of fields. A business-related record can contain personal information. Consider the actual fields and intended use rather than assuming every entry is outside data protection because it appears on a public register.
The ICO’s lawful basis guidance explains that processing personal data needs an applicable lawful basis. Public availability does not remove the need to assess your own processing. The OGL’s exclusion of personal data is another reason to keep the licensing and privacy questions distinct.
Ask whether personal details are necessary for your purpose and obtain appropriate advice for uncertain cases. Avoid including unnecessary contact details in a customer export merely because they were present in the source. Document the basis for the information you retain or publish and consider the applicable transparency and other data protection requirements.
Can an information disclosure be republished automatically?
Check the reuse position separately from the access decision. A regulator may disclose existing information under environmental information legislation while copyright, database rights or personal information issues still require attention before your proposed republication.
Our guide to requesting waste information from regulators explains the access routes. When asking for records, you can also describe the intended reuse and request the relevant licence information. Keep the reply with the disclosure so the next person does not have to infer its conditions.
If a disclosed document includes third-party material, identify whether the supplied terms cover that material. Ask the provider which rights it can grant and which need separate permission. Avoid treating an email attachment as unrestricted just because it arrived in response to a formal information request.
How do you preserve the meaning when cleaning a dataset?
Keep a clear distinction between original source values and your working fields, within the applicable licence and retention arrangements. Record conversions, name matching and filters used to produce the output. Someone reviewing the result should be able to understand how it was derived.
The waste data quality guide covers missing values, duplicates and units. Cleaning should not silently change the underlying classification or convert an estimate into a measured quantity. Refer technical uncertainty to the appropriate person rather than resolving it through formatting.
If you standardise names for searching, retain the relationship to the published identifier. A convenient display name can otherwise merge separate businesses or facilities. The company and site matching guide explains how to preserve those distinctions while making the records useful.
Which dates and limitations should accompany a published result?
Identify the activity period and source version, as well as when you accessed the information. A new download can contain old activity, and a recent revision can correct mappings without describing new waste movements. Use labels that make those differences understandable. Our waste data dates and status guide explains this in more detail. Keep material warnings near the relevant result, particularly when readers can view an extract without seeing the original publication page.
Describe the scope of a derived figure. If it covers reported annual activity at a facility, do not present it as live available capacity or confirmation that a new load will be accepted. The historical data and site acceptance guide explains why current suitability needs separate evidence.
How can charts and rankings misrepresent public waste data?
Check that comparisons use compatible periods, units and categories. The arithmetic may be correct even when the records being compared have different scopes. Keep missing data and uncertain matches distinguishable from zero activity so the display does not create a false conclusion.
Explain the measure in plain language. A large received tonnage is not automatically evidence of better recycling, and a small reported quantity cannot establish poor compliance. Any ranking needs a justified measure and evidence appropriate to the conclusion you want readers to draw.
Use the waste and recycling report comparison guide to investigate scope differences. If the intended comparison cannot be supported, change the presentation or explain why the figures are shown separately. A limitation buried in an unrelated footnote may not correct a misleading headline.
What should change when internal research becomes a client product?
Recheck the use before sharing it. The original permission may concern internal analysis, while a client report or searchable portal exposes the information outside your organisation. Consider whether the client can copy, export or further distribute the records, as well as what appears on screen.
Give the reviewer an example of the proposed output and the relevant source terms. Identify raw fields, derived results and any information from another provider. This helps clarify the rights needed without asking the publisher to approve a product description that omits the actual data use.
A fictional consultancy might use a licensed dataset internally to research a question, then receive a request to supply its full working spreadsheet to a client. Before sending it, the consultancy checks the redistribution conditions and seeks clarification where necessary. It can discuss the underlying question while the rights position is resolved, without assuming that its internal permission covers the requested export.
How do you manage corrections and new versions?
Identify which outputs rely on the affected source version. A corrected mapping can change your result while continuing to describe the same reporting year. Review the impact before automatically replacing every file or continuing to circulate an older conclusion.
Retain a version history appropriate to the source conditions and your record requirements. State what changed in a revised report so readers can distinguish correction from new activity. If a licence condition limits continuing use, resolve that issue with the provider rather than assuming an audit purpose overrides it.
Assign an owner for published outputs. Someone needs to respond when a source correction or confirmed match changes the interpretation. Include the route for raising an error in your internal process, and give the responsible person access to the source and reuse record needed to investigate it.
How should source conditions reach the people doing the work?
Put the relevant conditions where the analyst and publication owner can find them. A licence kept only in the procurement inbox may be missed when someone prepares an export months later. Identify which dataset the condition concerns and what action it requires for the intended use.
For a time-limited permission, record the basis of the period and ask the provider to clarify any uncertain start or renewal point. Avoid inventing a date from the file’s publication year. Assign someone to resolve the position before the permitted use ends, including what should happen to outputs or access arrangements under the applicable terms.
If another team asks for a copy, give the request to the person managing reuse conditions. That person can check whether sharing fits the existing permission or needs clarification. A routine internal handover should carry the source details too, so the restriction does not disappear as the file moves through the organisation.
Can you rely on an old licence note for a new project?
Check the actual terms and the scope of any permission already obtained. A response about one dataset or internal project may not address another version, a different recipient or a public-facing service. Describe the changed use to the rights holder where additional clarification is needed.
Keep the earlier note with its original purpose explained. It can provide useful context without being presented as a wider permission than the provider gave. In the new project’s record, identify the remaining question and the decision needed before publication or redistribution. This helps the team proceed on confirmed terms instead of repeatedly relying on an informal recollection that reuse was once checked.
What checks should happen before the output is shared?
Confirm that the actual use fits the source licence and special conditions, and that any necessary additional permission is documented. Check attribution in the final output, not only in the drafting notes. Review personal information and third-party content with the appropriate person.
Then read the result as a recipient would. Can someone tell which period it covers, what was measured and what remains uncertain? Open the source links and check that charts or summaries have not removed qualifications essential to the conclusion.
If the output changes later, revisit the same checks. A private research note becoming a public download is a substantive change in use. Keep the permission question connected to that decision so the team can produce a useful report without relying on assumptions about what “public data” allows.