Consultation outcome

Annex 1: detailed summary of consultation responses: charge proposals for water quality permits

Updated 24 May 2024

This annex sets out the responses the Environment Agency received to our consultation on charge proposals for water quality permits. Read this along with our summary of consultation responses where we set out our response to the main themes raised by consultees. The responses you gave to specific consultation questions are detailed on this page. Questions are set out in the same format as they were in the online tool and response form.

Within the consultation, each question asked for a specific choice as well as providing a free text box for comments. The consultation questions were divided into several topics: 

• about you and consultation feedback
• proposed permit subsistence fees
• proposed permit application charges (including variations)
• economic context
• additional comments about the charging proposals

We received 165 responses through the online tool and consultation response form. We also received 13 emails and letters with comments relating to the consultation. This gave a total of 178 responses to the consultation.

About you

Within the Citizen Space consultation tool and response form, we included an ‘about you’ section to provide us with an understanding of who responded and to help us better analyse the consultation feedback.

For the 165 responses (152 online and 13 using our consultation response form), we asked if you were giving a personal response as an individual or providing a response on behalf of an organisation. You said:

• responding as an individual – 68
• responding on behalf of an organisation or group – 90
• other – 5
• no answer given – 2

If you responded on behalf of an organisation, we asked you to give us the name of the organisation. These responses are reported in Annex 2. We also asked you the number of employees within your business. You said:

• sole trader – 8
• fewer than 10 employees – 38
• 10 to 49 employees – 17
• 50 to 249 employees – 16
• 250 to 499 employees – 6
• 500 to 999 employees – 1
• more than 1,000 employees – 11
• no answer given – 68

We asked what medium you discharged to, and you said:

• surface water – 69
• groundwater – 17
• land – 30
• not applicable – 30
• no answer given – 19

We asked what volume you discharged or deposited, and you said:

• less than 2m³ a day to groundwater – 27
• less than 5m³ a day – 25
• between 5m³ to 1,000m³ a day – 35
• between 1,000 m³ to 500,000m³ a day – 11
• more than 500,000m³ a day – 7
• up to 100 tonnes in a year – 2
• more than 101 tonnes in a year – 2
• not applicable – 32
• no answer given – 24

We asked what your main area of business is, and you said:

• sewage discharge – 30
• trade or non-sewage discharge – 10
• rainfall only – 7
• aquaculture discharge – 9
• cooling water discharge – 1
• thermal discharge – 0
• land spreading – 16
• burial in land – 1
• small sewage discharge – 28
• other – 39
• no answer given – 24

Consultation tool feedback

For the 165 respondents who completed the consultation online, we asked whether the online tool was satisfactory. We received the following responses:

• very satisfied – 16
• satisfied – 55
• neither satisfied nor dissatisfied – 49
• dissatisfied – 11
• very dissatisfied – 11
• prefer not to say – 5
• not answered (online) – 5
• no response (response form) – 13

Of the 165 responses we received to this question, 52 included additional comments. We analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• consultation design too complicated – 18
• other comments – 7
• good consultation – 4
• issue with Citizen Space – 3
• indicate time taken to complete consultation – 2
• use plain English, phrase questions better or link did not work – 1

Many comments suggested the consultation should have been divided into sections to allow respondents to focus on questions of interest, rather than having one large document. Others said the consultation was time consuming to complete, in some cases difficult to understand, and for many, a lot of the questions were irrelevant.

A suggestion was made to include an impact calculator. One respondent said they would like to see a public log of when we had assessed compliance of a permit. Some felt we had already made up our mind about the charges but would be interested to see if we take into account the views of participating companies.

Some respondents said they thought our consultation was good and they liked our online consultation tool, Citizen Space. However, a few of the respondents had issues accessing our consultation tool, and a couple of the earlier respondents were unable to follow a faulty hyperlink.

Our response to the question on consultation tool feedback

We corrected the faulty link as soon as we became aware of it, shortly after the consultation was launched.

We appreciate your feedback and have passed your comments onto the relevant operational teams for their consideration. We will also take your responses into account when designing future consultations.

Proposed permit subsistence fees

For each question, we have provided a summary of your comments followed by our response. This document focuses on comments relating to the individual questions rather than duplicating of all the themes in our summary of consultation responses.

Sewage effluent discharges: sewerage undertakers

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed subsistence charges for discharges of sewage effluent by a sewerage undertaker?

This question received more negative responses than positive responses. The strength of opinion expressed in negative responses was weighted towards strongly disagree. Positive responses were almost balanced between agree and strongly agree. As noted in our response, we have concluded many consultees would have given a different reply if we had made clearer the definition of ‘sewerage undertaker’.

You said:

• strongly agree – 20
• agree – 21
• neither agree nor disagree – 17
• disagree – 15
• strongly disagree – 41
• do not know – 4
• not applicable – 36
• not answered – 11

Of the 165 responses we received to this question, 96 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• impact – 69
• better regulation – 65
• consultation design – 37
• transparency – 31
• agree proposals – 21
• timing – 10
• permitting – 4

Many comments suggest consultees misinterpreted the meaning of ‘sewerage undertaker’. We expect this was because the meaning was not made clear enough in the consultation.

We also received a range of comments expressing concern that our proposed charge increases were not high enough to adequately regulate the water industry, and that charges should be set at a punitive level for sewerage undertakers that pollute. Other responses suggested costs would most likely be passed on to water company bill payers.

Comments from respondents who agreed with this proposal included:

This is implementation of the ‘polluter pays’ principle. Those who discharge should pay to do so and the regulator will therefore be fully resourced to do its job effectively.

and

Increases are not enough. Sewerage operators have been allowed to discharge too much without adequate monitoring for too long. Increase charges to allow for effective regulation.

Responses from the statutory sewerage undertakers affected by this proposal included comments expressing support for increased operational scrutiny and agreeing that there should be a greater focus on environmental outcomes. These respondents also queried the scale and timing of proposed changes and whether their charge increases were proportionate compared to charge increases for other sectors. Examples of these comments include:

…we are also concerned about the increase in costs that the subsistence fees representing a c. 92% increase…

…the proposals represent a significant, unexpected, and unbudgeted increase in subsistence charges.

The timing for the implementation of the proposed charging scheme is also of concern as the budget has already been determined for financial year 2024-2025.

The increases are significant and will place an additional financial burden on sewerage undertakers to meet these costs within existing resource constraints.

We believe EA charges should demonstrate equity of approach between sectors.

and

We are concerned that based on what we know today, the Environment Agency’s monitoring of the water sector is being considered in isolation.

Our response for question 1

We will implement this proposal as outlined in the consultation. Increased charges will fund new inspection and regulatory transformation targets to help improve water quality, and statutory sewerage undertakers will see an uplift in our regulatory activities.

We use the term ‘sewerage undertaker’ to refer specifically to statutory undertakers for sewage who operate the public sewerage system, holding appointments as sewerage undertakers in the Water Industry Act 1991. They are currently:

• Anglian Water
• Northumbrian Water
• Severn Trent Water
• Southern Water
• South West Water
• Thames Water
• United Utilities
• Welsh Water
• Wessex Water
• Yorkshire Water

These charges could also apply to new appointments and variations (NAVs) appointed by Ofwat that provide sewerage services.

We believe many domestic households and businesses misinterpreted this charge proposal thinking it would apply to all sewerage effluent discharges. However, question 1 only applied to statutory sewerage undertakers. These are some examples of comments we received:

We are a small residential housing complex… the large percentage increase for very small users like ourselves is not acceptable.

and

…it seems that a 547% increase to the smallest discharge is high. If this is a small business, the rate could be the breaking of this small business with other input/output costs also being at an inflationary high.

We would like to make clear that this charge proposal does not apply to small housing complexes or small businesses.

Many of those who expressed concern about the scale of charge increase will not be affected in the way that was interpreted. Charges for non-statutory sewerage undertakers are addressed in question 3.

Statutory sewerage undertakers raised concerns about the timing and scale of our proposals and about charge increases not being budgeted for or aligned within their existing asset management plan (AMP) cycles. Proposal implementation is now due part way through the final year of AMP7 (2024-25) and, considering the economic impact analysis, we consider the increases to be proportionate and of a manageable scale. Moving into AMP8 (2025-2030) and beyond, these could be eligible costs for statutory sewerage undertakers to request Ofwat include in its 2024 Price Review determinations for the period.

The government has set a strong direction for us to urgently increase our level of regulatory activity across the water industry, to help reduce pollution incidents and drive improvements to water quality. Statutory sewerage undertakers have been underperforming for some time in respect of their environmental measures. HM Treasury guidance requires us to take a fair and proportionate approach to achieve full cost recovery for the additional regulatory activity required to address this.

Question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed subsistence charges for intermittent discharges of storm sewage and emergency sewage discharges by a sewerage undertaker?

This question received more positive responses than negative responses. The strength of opinion expressed in negative responses was weighted towards strongly disagree.

You said:

• strongly agree – 23
• agree – 20
• neither agree nor disagree – 18
• disagree – 10
• strongly disagree – 20
• do not know – 6
• not applicable – 55
• not answered – 13

Of the 165 responses we received to this question, 59 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• better regulation – 45
• impact – 38
• consultation design – 15
• agree proposals – 9
• transparency – 8
• timing – 2

Comments in support of this proposal noted the need for better monitoring of these discharges. These respondents said increased funding should enable more effective regulation. Some responses suggested these discharges are currently considered an easy way for water companies to spill sewage at the detriment of the environment and public health, as opposed to investing in their network to deal with the problem.

Comments included:

…it seems all too frequent that sewage undertakers use storms and other emergency conditions to justify release of untreated sewage into surface water. If these charges inhibit such activities, they must be a good thing…

Again, agree entirely with the increased charges but would like to see more rapid work to eliminate the requirement for storm overflows. Appreciate the companies need time to upgrade infrastructure, but they have the cash required, just get on with it.

and

The impact of effluent discharge has been significant in my local area. Increasing the finances necessary to discharge may well be a significant factor in encouraging them to reduce their output.

Some respondents commented that our proposed charges were not high enough to discourage continued pollution. These respondents wanted higher charges than those we had proposed and a greater increase in the levels of monitoring that we carry out. They said:

More monitoring data on this subject is essential.

and

Increases are not enough. Unmonitored, and effectively unregulated, discharge from CSOs because of ‘emergencies’ has been a bane of UK society since privatisation…

Responses from the statutory sewerage undertakers affected by this proposal included comments expressing support for increased operational scrutiny and agreeing that there should be a greater focus on environmental outcomes. These respondents also queried the scale and timing of proposed changes and whether their charge increases were proportionate compared to other charge increases. We have addressed these concerns under question 1 (proposed subsistence charges for continuous sewage discharges by sewerage undertakers).

Our response for question 2

We will implement changes as proposed in the consultation. We have noted that more respondents agreed with this proposal than disagreed. We think it is fair that our charges recover the full cost of increased regulatory activity for these discharges.

Many of the respondents who disagreed were permit operators who misinterpreted the meaning of ‘statutory sewerage undertaker’ and will not be affected by this proposal. For more information about intermittent sewage discharges operated by non-statutory sewerage undertakers, please see question 7.

Climate change, development, resilience pressures, increased public interest, and the introduction of event duration monitoring have significantly increased the amount of regulatory work needed for intermittent discharges over recent years. We expect the increased workload to continue. Event duration monitoring is a regulatory requirement for statutory sewerage undertakers to monitor the frequency and duration of releases from storm overflows. It is now available at all statutory sewerage undertakers’ combined sewage overflows. Event duration monitoring data must be reported to us by the undertaker as part of their permit conditions to discharge from these storm overflows. We assess event duration monitoring data as part of our regulatory activity to help identify where performance needs to improve. Thorough and timely assessment of these data will increase our intelligence relating to pollution and inform increases in assessment activities.

Charges reflect increased front-line services, technical resilience and data management which contribute to achieving the statutory storm overflows discharge reduction plan. Pollution from intermittent discharges of storm sewage and emergency sewage discharges by sewerage undertakers is a matter of growing public concern that continues to receive high profile attention. Our charges will fund increased levels of regulatory activity to allow for greater scrutiny and transparency around when and where such discharges take place, and how they affect the environment.

Continuous sewage discharges: non-sewerage undertakers

Question 3: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed subsistence charges for continuous discharges of sewage effluent by a non-sewerage undertaker?

This question received a lot more positive responses than negative responses. The strength of opinion in negative responses was weighted toward strongly disagree whilst positive responses were weighted toward agree.

You said:

• strongly agree – 17
• agree – 33
• neither agree nor disagree – 21
• disagree – 9
• strongly disagree – 21
• do not know – 6
• not applicable – 47
• not answered – 11

Of the 165 responses we received to this question, 59 included additional comments. We analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• better regulation – 27
• impact – 24
• agree proposals – 19
• transparency – 10
• consultation design – 2

Comments indicated general support for proposed charges and an understanding of the scale of change required. Some respondents said they wanted to see increased monitoring of activities and improved water quality. Others acknowledged that their charge would be decreasing or only increasing by a minimal amount when compared to inflation.

Responses that disagreed were largely from water companies arguing that the scale of these increases was disproportionately low compared to the proposed increases for statutory sewerage undertakers. For example:

We are somewhat at a loss that the subsistence charges for continuous discharges by non-sewerage undertakers have effectively been frozen at 2018 levels.

Other groups of customers who did not support this proposal said their increases would be minimal, but the changes were still too much when compared to non-commercial customers. They said efficiencies should be made before charge changes, that it was unclear how charges were derived, and that costs will be passed to end users. Another respondent said customers might claim to be discharging lower volumes to avoid higher costs.

Our response for question 3

We will implement this proposal as outlined in the consultation. We welcome the support for our proposals and acknowledge concerns raised by some consultees about the scale of change being less than for changes to our charges for other activities. These charges reflect the full cost of our regulatory activity.

Changes to subsistence charges for continuous sewage discharges will range between -4% and 5% depending on volume. These changes are not on the same scale of increase as the revised charges for statutory sewerage undertakers because we have not been required to uplift our levels of regulatory activity in the same manner as for the water industry sector. Our guide to how we calculate our charges (published with our consultation) explains the methodology to work out the cost. Since our last review of charges in 2018 there have been a number of changes to how we provide our services. We have also implemented efficiencies that helped us minimise increases to our charge rates.

Trade and non-sewage discharges     

Question 4: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed subsistence charges for trade and non-sewage effluent discharges to water?

This question received more positive responses than negative responses.

You said:

• strongly agree – 9
• agree – 30
• neither agree nor disagree – 33
• disagree – 17
• strongly disagree – 11
• do not know – 8
• not applicable – 43
• not answered – 14

Of the 165 responses we received to this question, 58 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• better regulation – 24
• impact – 21
• agree proposals - 18
• consultation design – 15
• transparency – 5
• timing – 1

Respondents who agreed with this proposal said our charge increases were of an acceptable level. These respondents said our charges should fund appropriate regulation to help relieve the environmental impacts of these discharges.

Those that disagreed asked for further justification of increases and why increases varied between activities. Others said they thought the existing charges were adequate, increases were not needed, and that higher costs would be passed on to end users.

Our response for question 4

We will implement this proposal as outlined in the consultation. We understand that some respondents felt the scale of this charge increase was high when compared to charge increases for other activities. However, in developing our charges, we seek to recover the full cost of our regulatory activity in line with HM Treasury rules on managing public money when calculating full cost recovery for each regulatory activity.

The level of regulatory activity we undertake will not change. It is for individual businesses or other organisations to decide how they will absorb or pass on these changes to charges to their customers or clients.

The proposed charges in this category increase proportionately in relation to the volume or size and content of a discharge, with increases ranging from less than 1% up to 15%. Volumetric bands are also split between those with or without operator self-monitoring. A lower charge amount is in place for each volumetric band to reflect the reduced cost of our regulation where operator self-monitoring is in place.

Compared to sewage discharges, the composition of trade and non-sewage discharges is relatively predictable and therefore our regulatory effort is less than for sewage discharges of the same volume. Some trade and non-sewage discharges in this category have permits with limits for hazardous chemicals and environmentally important elements, known as ‘specific substances’, and other significant or other substances. Where specific substances are specified, the risks and impacts of the discharge increase. This increases our monitoring and analytical costs and results in higher charges overall.

Groundwater activities (liquid)

Question 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed subsistence charges for groundwater activities (liquid)?

This question received more positive responses than negative responses.

You said:

• strongly agree – 13
• agree – 24
• neither agree nor disagree – 29
• disagree – 14
• strongly disagree – 16
• do not know – 8
• not applicable – 52
• not answered – 9

Of the 165 responses we received to this question, 58 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• impact – 36
• better regulation – 21
• agree proposals – 12
• sheep dip – 11
• transparency – 6
• consultation design – 3

Respondents who agreed with this proposal said the charges were fair and reasonable. They recognised the risk that disposal of sheep dip to land (sometimes referred to as land spreading of sheep dip) poses to water quality and understood that our regulation of this activity needs to be robust.

The majority of those who disagreed were sheep farmers and agricultural trade associations. They commented that any charge for disposal of sheep dip to land will have an impact on animal welfare and affordability.

Our response for question 5

We will implement the proposed charges as outlined in the consultation. We acknowledge this subset of charges primarily affects the agriculture industry who are subject to many significant financial pressures. However, requirements for us to regulate these discharges have not changed. The level of regulatory activity we undertake will not change but we will fully recover the costs of that activity. Our response to feedback about proposed application charges for disposal of sheep dip to land is given in question 11.

We have worked to find efficiencies within our regulation, and to maintain its proportionality. Changes to these charges range between –2% and 4%. The overall increase is minimal, and in the case of charges for smallest volume discharged (the most frequently issued sheep dip permits) the charge is marginally decreasing.

As sheep scab becomes more widespread, the need to use sheep dip as an effective method of prevention is increasingly important. We need to make sure that those handling sheep dip are disposing of it appropriately. The charging design has not changed; the charges for disposal of used sheep dip to land (and other liquid disposal) differentiate between small single farm discharges and larger commercial collection operations. This distinction reflects the different risks and therefore different levels of our regulatory effort.

Groundwater activities (solid)

Question 6: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed subsistence charges for groundwater activities (solid)?

This question received more positive responses than negative responses.

You said:

• strongly agree – 9
• agree – 13
• neither agree nor disagree – 33
• disagree – 5
• strongly disagree – 11
• do not know – 10
• not applicable – 68
• not answered – 16

Of the 165 responses we received to question, this 35 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• impact – 13
• agree proposals – 8
• better regulation – 7
• consultation design – 5
• transparency – 1

Respondents that agreed with this proposal said charges to fund the monitoring of potentially polluting buried solids were necessary to establish the impacts on groundwater quality. Those that disagreed said the increase was far above inflation. They suggested that we seek efficiencies before increasing our charges and said that our charges do not reflect lower risk locations such as burials on higher ground.

Our response for question 6

We will implement this proposal as outlined in the consultation. Increases to these charges range between 11% and 12%. This is below cumulative inflation since charges were last reviewed in 2018 (around 24% according to the Bank of England using the consumer prices index). Updates to these charges were designed to achieve full cost recovery and the level of regulatory activity we undertake will not change.

Some solid non-waste deposits to land must be permitted as they may contain substances that could present a risk to the water environment if not properly managed. This could include burial activities at cemeteries or where certain material that is legally not waste is used in the environment. The charges have been subdivided into smaller and larger scale operations. We have also made administrative amendments to improve the naming of some charge categories, for example, to include an equivalent number of burials as a scale to use for cemeteries.

We undertake environmental surveillance monitoring, with our area groundwater teams providing specialist assessment of the local groundwater conditions. For solid deposits, additional support from our environmental planning and sustainable place teams may also be provided, particularly for larger scale operations.

Intermittent discharges: non-sewerage undertakers

Question 7: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed subsistence charges for intermittent discharges from combined sewage overflows and emergency overflow discharges by a non-sewerage undertaker?

This question received more positive than negative responses, although for most the question was not applicable.

You said:

• strongly agree – 12
• agree – 22
• neither agree nor disagree – 22
• disagree – 10
• strongly disagree – 11
• do not know – 4
• not applicable – 66
• not answered – 18

Of the 165 responses we received to this question, 35 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• better regulations – 20
• impact – 16
• agree proposals – 8
• consultation design – 6
• transparency – 2
• permitting – 1
• timing – 1

Comments from respondents who agreed with this proposal were in favour of having a separate charge for discharges by a non-statutory sewerage undertaker. Others agreed with having a separate charge for discharges by a non-statutory sewerage undertaker but said our charges should be higher than those we had proposed, instead based on non-compliance or environmental impact.

Many of the respondents who disagreed with this proposal had confused charges for discharges made by a non-statutory sewerage undertaker with those proposed for discharges made by statutory sewerage undertakers who undertake the same activity. Some respondents said that we should set our charges at a level that discourages intermittent discharges from combined sewage overflows and emergency overflow discharges.

Our response for question 7

We welcome the support for these charges and will implement our proposal as outlined in the consultation. These charges have not been updated since 2018 which means we are now undercharging for the current service. We are not changing our regulatory activities for these permits. The new charges have been designed to recover the full cost of our regulatory activities. HM Treasury managing public money principles establish that we cannot set charges at a level which is higher than the service level we provide, or to disincentivise certain activities.

When compared to intermittent discharges operated by statutory sewerage undertakers, this subset of charges has not risen by a comparable amount. This is because regulation of these discharges is not as complex, as they are not connected to the public sewerage network as operated by a statutory sewerage undertaker.

Rainfall related discharges

Question 8: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed subsistence charges for rainfall related discharges?

This question received twice as many negative responses as positive responses, although for most the question was not applicable.

You said:

• strongly agree – 5
• agree – 12
• neither agree nor disagree – 33
• disagree – 16
• strongly disagree – 18
• do not know – 12
• not applicable – 52
• not answered – 17

Of the 165 responses we received to this question, 41 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• consultation design – 20
• impact – 16
• better regulation – 9
• agree proposals – 6
• permitting – 2
• transparency – 1

Most of the comments noted that this charge increase was greater than the charge increases proposed for other categories. Respondents suggested this charge was disproportionately high given the low risk posed by discharges of clean rainwater.

Other respondents said the charges were sensible or insignificant, and made supportive comments regarding charges to protect water quality.

Our response for question 8

We will implement our proposal as outlined in the consultation. Our review showed we are under charging for the regulatory activities we already undertake. We will not change how we regulate these activities. Charge increases are necessary to recover the full cost of our service.

We acknowledge that many consultees expressed concerns about us charging for the regulation of what they had interpreted to mean discharges of clean rainwater. However, these charges are not related to clean rainwater. This category covers discharges for contaminated site drainage and the dewatering of polluted and or treated groundwater. These discharges need to be regulated to manage risks to the environment.

Aquaculture discharges

Question 9: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed subsistence charges for aquaculture discharges?

This question received slightly more negative responses than positive responses, although for most the question was not applicable.

You said:

• strongly agree – 10
• agree – 12
• neither agree nor disagree – 30
• disagree – 10
• strongly disagree – 16
• do not know – 7
• not applicable – 64
• not answered – 16

Of the 165 responses we received to this question, 42 included additional comments. We analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• impact – 27
• better regulation – 10
• agree proposals – 8
• transparency – 6
• consultation design – 5

Some respondents who disagreed with this proposal noted concerns about charge increases being greater than inflation. Others commented that this charge proposal would have an impact on food producers and said companies were already experiencing economic pressures.

Respondents in support of this proposal said there should be robust regulation to match the risk fish farms pose to the aquatic environment, and some said charges should be higher.

Our response for question 9

We will implement our proposal as outlined in the consultation. Our review showed we have been under charging for the regulatory activities we already undertake. The increased charges will recover the full cost of our service. We will not change how we regulate these activities.

Aquaculture discharges come from the cultivation of fish or plants. They are typically of high volume containing dilute pollutants that present particular risks and impacts. Our charging scheme reflects the range of discharge volumes, and our compliance work assesses nutrient loading from these discharges.

The charge increases for the bands are 20%, 26% and 29%. We understand these increases are higher than other water discharge activities, but charges are calculated consistently across all water quality permits. Most aquaculture discharge permits will see the smallest increase.

Cooling water and non-exempt thermal discharges

Question 10: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed subsistence charges for cooling water and non-exempt thermal discharges?

This charge proposal received more negative responses than positive responses, although for most, the question was not applicable.

You said:

• strongly agree – 7
• agree – 11
• neither agree nor disagree – 27
• disagree – 10
• strongly disagree – 11
• do not know – 8
• not applicable – 73
• not answered – 18

Of the 165 responses we received to this question, 32 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• better regulation – 12
• impact –12
• agree proposals – 4
• consultation design – 2

Some respondents who agreed with the proposal said it was a sensible approach reflecting the risks of this type of discharge. They recognised that charge increases were needed to recover the costs of regulation needed to help improve water quality.

There were also various conflicting comments about this charge proposal. Some respondents said the proposed charge was too low for this type of higher risk discharge. Others said the charges were too high, should not be above inflation and that they would have negative impacts on industries experiencing wider economic pressures. Some suggested the environmental impact of these discharges is minimal compared to risk of climate change.

One respondent noted the percentage increase to charges in this category was higher than for other types of discharges. Another said we should become more efficient before increasing charges in this sector.

Our response for question 10

We will implement our proposal as outlined in the consultation. We have been under recovering for the regulatory service we provide. The increased charges will allow us to recover the full costs of our regulatory activity. The compliance activity we carry out varies with size and volume of a discharge. This is reflected in our charging scheme. We are not changing our current level of regulatory service.

These effluent discharge activities are for industry that use water for cooling purposes within their processes or for discharges from heat pumps and heat exchangers. These discharges remain substantially unchanged by contaminants but can cause increased temperatures in the local environment, leading to stress on ecosystems. Where pollutants are known to be present, additional compliance requirements are included in the permit.

Proposed permit application charges (including variations)

Question 11: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the permit application and variation charges?

This charge proposal received more negative responses than positive responses. The strength of opinion expressed in negative responses was weighted towards strongly disagree.

You said:

• strongly agree – 8
• agree – 15
• neither agree nor disagree – 3
• disagree – 2
• strongly disagree – 40
• do not know – 10
• not applicable – 27
• not answered – 12

Of the 165 responses we received to question 11, 69 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• impact – 54
• better regulation – 26
• permitting – 21
• transparency – 13
• consultation design – 11
• sheep dip – 11
• timing – 10
• agree proposals – 8

Comments from respondents who agreed with this proposal included:

We welcome the increase in charges and additional assessment by the Environment Agency to determine permit applications to ensure that they do not have a negative impact on the aquatic environment.

and

More should be charged to ensure that environmental regulation going forward can be robust.

The majority of those who disagreed said the proposed charge increases were too high in the context of wider economic pressures. They suggested that our charges would be a barrier to entry and may discourage the take up of technologies or environmentally beneficial and innovative approaches. One respondent said variation charges were disproportionate to minor administrative changes such as changing a name on a permit.

Some respondents noted concerns over the current levels of service, particularly the length of time to receive a permit.

We also received feedback noting sector specific concerns.

Water and sewerage consultees said:

• they would like clarity on charges and service for permit variations required by legislative or policy drivers during AMP investment periods
• that there was not enough time to adjust budgeting for AMP variations in their business plans

Sheep farmers and agricultural trade associations said:

• increased costs for disposal of sheep dip to land (sometimes referred to as land spreading of sheep dip) would have an impact on animal welfare
• charges should be phased in through stages over several years

Our response for question 11

We recognise that some respondents have concerns about the proposed charge increases.

As we have not updated our charges since 2018, our assessment identified we have been undercharging for the current service. Our proposed new water quality application charges are essential to allow us to address cost pressures in our current service. As with all our proposals, we have sought to minimise increases to charge payers. We have retained the existing charging framework and considered how to keep our services and cost recovery as simple as possible. For example, transferring your permit for a water discharge or groundwater activity to a different holder or making administrative changes to your permit remain free of charge.

Except for disposal of sheep dip to land applications charges, we will implement the application and variation charges as outlined in the consultation from 1 June 2024.

We have calculated our charges to recover the full cost of our service. We recognise that assessment times for permit applications have not been at expected levels for some permit types over the last three years. Through a permitting improvement programme, we were able to increase resource in the national permitting service and we have seen performance improve in the past 18 months. We have also been focusing on continuous improvement of our processes. This process improvement will vary from small administrative improvements to larger systems changes; some of the most significant benefits may take many years to achieve. Our ambition for permitting is to have an efficient service with:

• smaller queues
• our application assessment times aligned with the complexity of the application
• better communication with all customer groups

We will continue to work with customers on innovative or environmentally beneficial approaches to their discharge activities. Our charges will help fund a sustainable service for the Environment Agency to offer advice on such approaches. Our permitting activity remains broadly the same in such cases and we must still recover our costs, however this drives better outcomes and long-term savings. We follow managing public money rules that say we should pass the full cost of regulatory services on to all customers, including other public bodies and not for profit sector.

Our response to sector specific concerns is as follows.

Water and sewerage company AMP variations

We have considered the regulatory effort in varying water and sewerage company permits through the AMP process. There was no proposal in the consultation to change the charge for varying event duration monitoring of combined sewer overflows or emergency overflows for permits for AMP6 and AMP7 schemes. These will continue to be charged at £903.

We have reviewed our activity for all other AMP schemes and confirm the relevant variation charges are proportionate to our service and consistent with how all other customers are charged to vary their permits. The details of the variation type for AMP8 schemes will be confirmed to water and sewerage companies through our usual technical and management liaison routes. Our proposed implementation will allow water and sewerage companies to discuss managing the charges with Ofwat in their Price Review 2024 business plan.

Animal welfare

We have listened to concerns raised and fully considered the options. To make sure the correct permits are in place for the disposal of sheep dip to land and to reduce risk to animal health, we will hold application charges for sheep dip disposal to land at the current rate (£2,708).

As sheep scab becomes more widespread, the need to use sheep dip as an effective method of prevention is increasingly important. We also need to make sure that those who handle sheep dip dispose of it responsibly and we recognise that cost increases could be prohibitive.

We need to make sure the correct regulatory controls are in place for the disposal of sheep dip to land and that its practice is cost effective. Our decision gives the Environment Agency, Defra, the sheep sector and other stakeholders the opportunity to develop a longer-term management strategy.

We know since the last charge renewal in 2018, many sheep farmers have chosen to use mobile contractors rather than dipping themselves. We will work with the industry and others to support development of a strategy to control sheep scab and promote the use of mobile dippers.

Proposed revision to non-discretionary supplementary application charges

Habitats assessment

Question 12: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed charge for habitats assessment for discharges to water and groundwater activities?

A similar number of respondents agreed as disagreed with this charge proposal. However, most respondents said they neither agreed nor disagreed, or said this question was not applicable to them.

You said:

• strongly agree – 12
• agree – 19
• neither agree nor disagree – 37
• disagree – 15
• strongly disagree – 19
• do not know – 11
• not applicable – 39
• not answered – 13

Of the 165 responses we received to question 12, 52 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• impact – 25
• better regulation – 22
• agree proposals – 14
• consultation design – 9
• permitting – 4
• transparency – 3
• timing – 2
• sheep dip – 1

Several respondents submitted comments that supported our proposals and the need to protect habitats. However, a few respondents commented that the charge was too high and would have a cumulative impact with other baseline and supplementary charges. They suggested this would discourage applications and increase non-compliance. One respondent noted animal welfare risks that were also raised in responses to question 11. Other respondents sought clarifications around:

• what the charge is paying for where the applicant or someone they appoint does the assessment
• when the charge applies as current guidance on site specific criteria is perceived as vague
• efficiencies could be identified with information submitted and decisions made through the planning process to reduce our costs

The cemetery sector commented that the habitats assessment was not comparable for natural burial sites compared to conventional sites.

Our response for question 12

We agree that assessing the risk of activities on habitats is important and we have to recover our costs for all activities we need to undertake to make a decision. We will implement the fixed supplementary charge for habitats assessments as outlined in the consultation. We have listened to the animal welfare concerns and fully considered the options as outlined in our response to question 11. Where a habitats assessment is required for an application for the disposal of sheep dip to land (sometimes referred to as land spreading of sheep dip), we will hold charges at the current rate of £779 (see question 11).

We must assess whether a protected site could be affected by the activity pertaining to a permit application and make sure it is protected. To do this we use screening criteria based on the type of activity, location, and sensitivities of the protected features which make up the site. The charge is only applied where we must spend additional time in assessing applications. Charging in this way makes sure people only pay for the regulatory service they receive.

The supplementary charge applies if the activity may affect any of the following protected sites:

• European Site within the meaning of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017
• site referred to in the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 as requiring the same assessment as a European Site
• site of special scientific interest within the meaning of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
• marine conservation zone within the meaning of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

Applicants can access our pre-application advice service for free advice on whether their activity may have an impact on heritage and nature conservation sites or protected species and habitats.

As a result of the feedback, we are considering opportunities to improve our guidance pages, where appropriate, to provide further clarification on screening distances.

Our approach when calculating the cost of this service has been based on assessing full cost recovery and identifying efficiencies. Whilst local authority planning and our permitting decisions are closely linked, they are separate. Permitting determines if an operation can be managed on an ongoing basis to prevent or minimise pollution. As an authorised body under the various protected sites legislation, we must undertake our own assessment to inform permit decision making and recover our own costs. The proposed charge also includes a fixed element for costs incurred by Natural England where we use their services for work on habitats assessments on sensitive locations.

Cemetery sector

We have listened to feedback and are accelerating development of standard rule permits for the cemetery sector which will take into account sensitive locations for natural burial activities. Standard rule permits have simpler underpinning processes, meaning our costs are reduced resulting in lower application charges. The need for a habitat assessment is driven solely by the proximity of the proposed cemetery to a habitat site, regardless of whether it is a conventional site or a green burial site.

Proposed new non-discretionary supplementary application charges

Specific substances assessment

Question 13: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed new charges for a specific substances assessment for a water discharge activity to surface water or a groundwater activity?

This charge proposal received more positive responses than negative responses.

You said:

• strongly agree – 11
• agree – 18
• neither agree nor disagree – 38
• disagree – 12
• strongly disagree – 10
• do not know – 19
• not applicable – 42
• not answered – 15

Of the 165 responses we received to question 13, 40 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• agree proposals – 19
• better regulation – 14
• impact 10
• consultation design – 9
• transparency – 4
• permitting – 1

Most customers supported the separation of this charge. These respondents commented that:

…discharges to surface water need more detailed investigation than those to groundwater…

and

Lower regulatory effort required for a specific substances assessment for a water discharge activity to groundwater…

However, some respondents said there was an inconsistency between surface water and groundwater costs. Others commented that a fixed charge was not flexible or proportionate and an hourly charge may be more appropriate.

Two respondents said it was unclear if the supplementary charge would apply to variation applications and, if it did, felt the charge would be substantially higher than the current scheme.

The National Farmers’ Union wanted transparency on whether this charge would apply to applications for the disposal of sheep dip to land

Our response for question 13   

Under current guidance, changes to specific substances assessments are charged as substantial variations. We have listened to your feedback and undertaken additional analysis on variations. Changes to permits that will require a specific substances assessment will now be charged as a normal variation plus the specific substances supplementary charge. We will update our guidance to reflect this. For many customers who discharge volumes less than 5m³ a day and or groundwater activities, this will result in a reduction of the application charge.

We will update our charging scheme to make it clear that:

• this supplementary charge does not apply to applications for the disposal of sheep dip to land
• the charge will apply per assessment, not per substance

We will implement the fixed supplementary charges for specific substances assessments as outlined in the consultation.

The additional charges are to cover work over and above the set application cost and are specific to applications requiring these additional costs. There was widespread support to have transparency in charging specific substances assessments as a supplementary charge. We believe it is fair and more transparent to charge more for assessments that require more work.

Our analysis has shown that assessments to surface water are more complex than to groundwater and take more time. This reflects our published guidance on the different regulatory requirements and processes for risk assessment to surface water compared to groundwater. Where we have greater certainty over our effort, fixed charges provide certainty and consistency. There is an advantage in setting the same charge for the same assessment, where the difference in cost is trivial.

Specific substances definition for surface water

Question 14: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed change to our definition of specific substances for permit applications to surface water?

This charge proposal received a lot more positive responses than negative responses.

You said:

• strongly agree – 15
• agree – 20
• neither agree nor disagree – 40
• disagree – 10
• strongly disagree – 9
• do not know – 16
• not applicable – 39
• not answered – 16

Of the 165 responses we received to question 14, 35 included additional comments. We analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• agree proposals – 17
• transparency – 13
• impact – 6
• better regulation – 5
• consultation design – 3

Most customers generally supported the refined definition of a specific substances assessment in the charging scheme. Some respondents said the definition allowed flexibility for us to recover costs relating to novel and emerging water pollutants and improve water quality. Other respondents expressed concerns that the addition to the definition was vague and could lead to variability in when the associated charge would be applied. These respondents suggested we should provide criteria to define a specific substances assessment.

Our response for question 14

We will implement the amended definition for specific substances assessments, as outlined in the consultation.

We agree that the definition will be clearer and give consistency and fairness. It will make sure we recover the costs of our regulation and that people only pay for the regulatory service they receive.

In response to the feedback, we will seek to explain through guidance and staff training about when the specific substances assessment supplementary charges apply in addition to any baseline charge to avoid uncertainty in these matters.

Proposed new groundwater activity charges

Groundwater activities: closed-loop ground source heating and cooling systems

We have considered the following two questions together and given one response to cover both, see our response to questions 15 and 16 combined.

Question 15: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed new application charges for closed-loop ground source heating and cooling systems?

You said:

• strongly agree – 9
• agree – 16
• neither agree nor disagree – 26
• disagree – 10
• strongly disagree – 20
• do not know – 9
• not applicable – 60
• not answered – 15

Of the 165 responses we received to question 15, 43 included additional comments. We analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• impact – 29
• better regulation – 22
• agree proposals – 4
• consultation design – 4
• transparency – 3

Question 16: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed new subsistence charges for closed-loop ground source heating and cooling systems?

You said:

• strongly agree – 8
• agree – 14
• neither agree nor disagree – 28
• disagree – 10
• strongly disagree – 17
• do not know – 11
• not applicable – 62
• not answered – 15

Of the 165 responses we received to question 16, 39 included additional comments. We analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• better regulation – 23
• impact – 19
• transparency – 4
• agree proposals – 5
• consultation design – 1

Summary of consultee responses for questions 15 and 16 combined

More respondents gave negative responses than positive responses for our closed loop heat pump charge proposals. Negative responses were weighted towards strongly disagree. However, most respondents did not respond to these questions (not applicable, do not know, not answered) or selected neither agree nor disagree.

Respondents who disagreed said these charge proposals would discourage the installation of heat pump systems or commented that it was not clear why closed-loop systems needed a charge. Others went further and said our proposal was a barrier against green technology and some said this proposal did not support government net zero policies.

One respondent commented that proposed subsistence charges were additional costs to small users when no further permitting is required.

Our response for questions 15 and 16 combined

We are grateful for feedback provided in response to these questions. The number of comments suggesting a charge for single domestic systems would be a barrier to entry gave us sufficient evidence to consider a regulatory position statement. This would remove the need for these systems to be regulated under a permit where we consider a permit disproportionate to public interest, environmental risk or outcome to be achieved. We will implement proposals as outlined in the consultation.

We recognise that for most of the closed-loop ground source heat systems, the risks of environmental impact are low and for this reason we are taking a risk-based approach to permitting these activities. The amendments to the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 made in 2023 allow systems to be exempt from permitting requirements for approximately 96% of England. The same amendments allow us to develop standard rules permits for groundwater activities. We are currently developing standard rules permits for closed-loop systems which will offer light touch regulation and a much-reduced charge for most of those systems falling within the remaining 4% of England.

We expect systems that do not meet exemption or standard rule permit conditions, and therefore require a bespoke permit, will be limited to a small number in the highest risk locations. For example, those in sensitive wetland habitats and close to drinking water abstraction wells. Where the sites are located very close to sensitive wetlands or abstraction boreholes, then additional controls and risk assessments are required. This results in a higher cost for bespoke permits. Our annual subsistence charges cover the cost of our compliance activity to make sure the permit conditions are being met by the operator. The annual subsistence charges will cover the cost of detailed annual desktop audits that reflect our risk based regulatory approach.

Groundwater mobile plant permit applications and subsistence charges

Question 17: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed time and materials charge for groundwater mobile plant?

This charge proposal received a lot more positive responses than negative responses.

You said:

• strongly agree – 8
• agree – 19
• neither agree nor disagree – 29
• disagree – 7
• strongly disagree – 8
• do not know – 14
• not applicable – 64
• not answered – 16

Of the 165 responses we received to question 17, 25 included additional comments. We have analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• agree proposals – 8
• better regulation – 3
• impact – 3
• consultation design – 1

Respondents noted that this was in line with our other chargeable rates and expected the number of customers affected to be low.

Our response for question 17

We will implement the proposal, as outlined in the consultation. We continue to monitor our charges and use hourly rates where the activities allow and we get the best value for money, keeping costs to a minimum.

We agree that an hourly charge is proportional, and we are expecting limited applications for these bespoke activities. We are accelerating the development of standard rule permits for lower risk groundwater mobile plant activities.

Surrender charge for a standalone groundwater activity at an onshore oil and gas facility

Question 18: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed surrender charges for a standalone groundwater activity at an onshore oil and gas facility?

This charge proposal received a lot more positive responses than negative responses.

You said:

• strongly agree – 12
• agree – 15
• neither agree nor disagree – 26
• disagree – 3
• strongly disagree – 4
• do not know – 13
• not applicable – 74
• not answered – 18

Of the 165 responses we received to question 18, 19 included additional comments. We analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• agree proposals – 5
• impact – 3
• better regulation – 2
• consultation design – 1

Comments in support of this proposal included:

There is evidently the need for the Agency to recover the costs of conducting the technical assessment that is now required to be undertaken.

Respondents who disagreed with this proposal suggested the charge was not proportionate if our assessment found there was no ongoing risk to groundwater. And that sites may be abandoned rather than the permit be formally surrendered.

Our response for question 18

We welcome the support in response to this question and will implement our proposal as outlined in the consultation.

We need to recover the costs of our regulatory service. Our charge proposals were based on a careful consideration of the work required to reach a decision on a surrender application for this activity. Operators must comply with the conditions of their permits until we agree the permit can be surrendered. When oil and gas wells reach the end of their productive life, we need to ensure they are decommissioned appropriately so they do not pose a threat to the environment in the future.

Customer impacts

Question 19: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our assessment of the economic impact?

This charge proposal received more negative responses than positive responses.

You said:

• strongly agree – 7
• agree – 22
• neither agree nor disagree – 41
• disagree – 19
• strongly disagree – 25
• do not know – 25
• not applicable – 12
• not answered – 14

Of the 165 responses we received to question 19, 67 included additional comments. We analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• impact – 78
• transparency – 15
• consultation design – 11
• better regulation – 8
• agree proposals – 7
• timing – 5
• sheep dip – 3
• permitting – 2

Of the 165 responses we received to question 19, 29 included additional comments for the follow up question on small to medium enterprise companies. We analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

• impact – 31
• transparency – 10
• better regulation – 5
• consultation design – 2
• agree proposals – 1
• sheep dip – 1

Consultees reiterated comments raised in their responses to earlier questions. These included better regulation, transparency, economic impacts, animal welfare and permitting service.

Some respondents supported our impact assessment and commented that it seemed broadly accurate. They agreed that impacts on permit holders should form part of our decisions and that change is needed so our regulatory services can be fully funded. One respondent noted the charges could have wider economic benefits indirectly for small businesses operating in coastal areas that are currently adversely affected by non-compliant sewage discharges.

Very little additional data was provided, other than some customers listing the cost of existing permits and what they can expect to pay under the new scheme.

Some responses noted specific concerns about the report. These included:

• various sectors raising concerns about multiple cost pressures
• report not addressing impact of costs passed on to permit holders’ customers
• small and medium sized businesses and domestic customers saying their charges were disproportionate and our analysis had not fully recognised this
• report not addressing the impact of application charges or the impact on specific sectors such as farmers, aquaculture, and heat pumps
• report being difficult to understand

Our response for question 19

We recognise that the current cost pressures are having a significant effect on many individuals and business. Increases to our charges affect diverse sectors and we always give careful consideration before proposing any changes. Our service is also impacted by the effects of inflation and rising costs in the same way as any other organisation. HM Treasury rules require us to recover our costs when ensuring that activities we regulate are carried out in a way that is not detrimental to people or the environment.

We completed an economic impact assessment to understand how our proposed new subsistence charges would impact the water sectors we regulate under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. Looking at subsistence charges gives us a better indication of overall impact as these are ongoing charges whereas application charges are a one-off cost. We concluded that most industrial sectors will only be very marginally impacted by the proposed changes in water quality charges. The water industry sector, made up of the major sewerage undertakers, is likely to face the highest impacts. But our analysis shows that the increases for the whole sector are acceptable. At an economic level, the proposed charge changes would have no significant financial impact on any sector.

We acknowledge that a typical firm level (or customer level) the impacts are more variable. We were particularly keen to understand the impact of charge increases on small or medium enterprises, individuals and householders, for which limited data were available. Very little additional data was provided in responses, other than customers noting what they expect to pay under the new scheme against the cost of their existing permits.

The economic impact assessment focussed specifically on the impact to business revenue and gross profit. We have not speculated as to whether individual businesses or other organisations will decide to absorb charge increases or pass these on to their customers or clients. Processes relating to changes in cost are internal business decisions that each company or organisation will do differently depending on a complex range of other factors they also consider.

Aquaculture and ground source heat pump sectors were not considered as part of the assessment as there were too few of these types of businesses with available revenue and cost data. We would welcome working with these industries in future assessment studies, with sectoral organisations for these industries providing revenue, costs and profit data, like that reported to Companies House.

We recognise that each farm is different, and it was a limitation of our economic impact assessment that we could not estimate the impacts of charge increases uniquely to each situation. Some consultation responses did make feasible suggestions on how to analyse the impact of charge increases on farms in combination with the impacts of wider sector challenges. However, this would require extensive time and data to undertake. Even with a more detailed study, because every farm business has its own individual characteristics, any form of aggregation would still result in nuanced impacts being lost.

To try and capture worst case scenarios, our analysis focused on revenue and profit and loss from solely agricultural income. However, it is not possible to capture every scenario that may affect individual farms.

We would welcome the opportunity to work with the industry to share details of farm businesses that are exclusively sheep or beef and those which are a combination of both. Such information is not currently available to us and would enable a more focused analysis of the grazing livestock farming sector.

We do not consider it necessary to change our assessment in light of the feedback received. Our final economic impact assessment report will be publicly available.

Question 20: Please share any additional comments that you think may help us improve our current proposals.

Of the 165 responses we received to this question, 65 included additional comments. We analysed these comments to identify the main themes raised in response to this question and the number of times each was mentioned:

You said:

• better regulation – 42
• impact – 33
• transparency – 32
• agree proposals – 10
• consultation design – 6
• permitting – 5
• sheep dip – 4
• timing – 3

Consultees reiterated comments raised in their responses to earlier questions. These were related to better regulation, transparency, economic impacts, sheep dip and permitting service.

There were also some specific comments about our charge proposals that had not been mentioned elsewhere. These included:

• incomplete information provided in the consultation, for example details of efficiency savings
• further assessment required on the impact of charges on open loop heat pumps sector
• charges do not take into account future regulatory changes, for example permitting of discharges of water unfit for supply from water treatment works
• charges should be based on the performance of the operator

Our response for question 20

Most of the themes raised in response to this question have been addressed earlier in this document.

We are confident our charges reflect the cost of an efficient service. As an organisation we recognise the need to ensure our charging schemes are cost-reflective year-on-year. We must adapt charges to reflect changes in legislation, policy, regulatory reform, societal demands and advances in technology and innovation. With income proportionate to our regulatory workload, the new charges allow a more effective, customer-focussed and consistent permitting service which is ultimately better for business and for the environment. In setting our charges we have identified innovation and process improvements, for example targeted automation in our data monitoring work, and these efficiency savings are reflected in the proposed charges. We will continue to improve training and digital tools. This will enable better use of data and information, lowering costs in the long term. We are exploring how automation can reduce the need for officers to monitor and assess data manually.

Open loop ground source heat systems are already considered on a tiered risk basis, with exemptions, standard rules permit, and bespoke permits applying in different circumstances depending on the volumes of water abstracted and the difference in temperature of the returned water. A regulatory position statement applies to single domestic systems that discharge to surface water. Bespoke permits with the highest charges only apply in the highest risk locations where risks must be assessed in detail and permits require ongoing controls to protect the environment.

Under managing public money rules, we can only charge for services that we provide in relation to permitted activities. Where new activities require a permit, we use an appropriate charge from those already listed in the tables of charges. Charges that are set in this way will be reviewed and incorporated into the charging scheme following the next review.

Our proposals seek to address poor performance across the water sector, and we are open to exploring further developments in future charge reviews.

Letter and email responses

We analysed all the comments submitted in the 13 responses received by letter or email (those which did not align with the consultation format or response form) to identify the main themes raised and the number of times each was mentioned:

• better regulation – 20
• disagree proposal – 12
• what will Environment Agency do, deliver, or poor service – 12
• economic considerations – 10
• timing – 10
• neutral or agree proposals – 8
• scheme design – 8
• permitting issues – 7
• other – 5
• consultation design – 3
• farming sector – 2
• increased regulatory burden – 2
• polluter should pay – 1
• unable to comment – 1

The most frequently identified theme relates to better regulation. These respondents wanted better regulation of water companies or other sectors, and they commented on the need for improved monitoring and better water quality. As noted above, many other themes were also raised.

Our response to the feedback received in letters and emails

Most of the themes raised in responses that we received by letter or email have been addressed earlier in this document and or in our summary of consultation responses.