Consultation outcome

Standard rules permit consultation No 28: summary of consultation responses

Updated 31 March 2025

1. Introduction

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 allow us to make standard rules to reduce the administrative burden on business and other operators while maintaining environmental standards.

The purpose of this consultation was to engage with stakeholders to obtain their views on a proposal for a set of standard rules to allow operators of existing installations to carry out research and development (R&D) activities for the innovation, introduction, and improvement of products and processes associated with the permitted activities. The proposal is one of the measures we are taking to help support business growth, Net Zero and a circular economy whilst having regard to the Regulators’ Code and continuing to protect the environment.

2. How we ran the consultation

We formally consulted from 7 August 2024 until 30 October 2024, using our Citizen Space consultation website.

We asked 9 questions. Questions relating to the draft standard rules were set out in Q1 to Q3 of the consultation. Questions relating to the risk assessment were set out in Q4 and Q5. Q6 is about the requirements for the R&D notification form. Questions relating to the business impact were set out in Q7. Q8 relates to R&D projects that may benefit from the approach and Q9 is for any further comments.

We received 16 responses to the consultation.

Of the 16 responses we received:

• 3 were from individuals
• 13 were responding on behalf of an organisation or group

A list of the names of the organisations that responded to the consultation is provided in the annex at the end of this page.

3. Summary of the main findings and actions we will take

Overall, the consultation responses were supportive of the new approach to allow low risk research and development at permitted installations. There were comments provided around the applicability of, and limitations within, the proposed rules and the risk assessment approach.

We have reviewed the draft rules with reference to the comments received and have produced a final version for publication on GOV.UK. We will publish the standard rules set by April 2025.

4. Responses to questions 1 to 3 and our response

Questions 1 to 3 relate to the proposed new standard rules set for research and development at a Part A(1) Installation.

Q1. Do you agree with our proposal to use standard rules at permitted installations to allow R&D activities?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 14
• no – 1
• don’t know – 1

Summary of comments received

Most respondents were supportive of the approach and commented that it would allow trials of new products processes and technologies. Also, that the approach should reduce the time it takes to allow trials to take place and reduce delays in the process. Some concern was expressed that a limit of six months for research and development might not be a long enough period to produce meaningful results (see Question 2). One respondent disagreed with limiting the use of rules only of existing installation sites and suggested a stand-alone rule set.

Our response

We note the supportive comments and propose to publish the standard rules for research and development at installations. We do not intend to produce a stand-alone rule set for R&D for this new streamlined approach because the permit controls and emission limits for existing sites underpin the management of risk for the R&D activity.

Q2. Do you agree with the requirements of the proposed standard rules for R&D?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 9
• no – 7
• don’t know – 0

Summary of comments received

Several comments were received about the period of time allowed under the rules for an R&D activity to take place, in particular:

• clarity around when the period starts and if it relates to the operational period of the activity rather than preparatory works
• that the period of 6 months for the activity to take place was not sufficient. Examples were provided including piloting an amine solvent selection process for installing post-combustion carbon capture (PCC) plants to new or existing power plants normally taking 12 months and an advanced thermal conversion demonstration plant

One respondent stated that there was no detail on the process for approval or rejection, including appeals and whether this would be subject to the requirements of a regulatory decision.

A comment related to the period allowed was that it was unclear under what circumstances an extension of time for a particular activity would be agreed under the rule.

Further comments raised were:

• confirmation regarding if the requirement to submit a proposal and have agreement within 14 days is working days or calendar days and that the Environment Agency will respond within the 14 days as delays may cause additional cost burdens on industry
• what means were available for a successful R&D trial to transition to a permanent solution
• a request for clarity around the definition of ‘preparatory work’
• clarity whether the R&D activity has to be located within the installation permit boundary and a comment that many permit boundaries are tight for space and there may not be room for any R&D plant within the boundary
• that many R&D proposals are not directly linked to the permitted activities and so there should not be a restriction on the R&D to being only associated with the permitted activities

Our response

We can confirm that the period of 6 months for an R&D activity was for the operational phase of the activity rather than any preparatory works. We will ensure preparatory works are suitably defined in the rules and that the generic risk assessment reflects this. We will amend the time period under the standard rule from 6 months to 12 months to allow greater scope for R&D to take place subject to the controls of the rules and the risk assessment. A request for an extension in time for the R&D can be made 14 working days before the end of the 12-month period. We will also be evaluating the success of this approach after it has been put into operation which will include examining any barriers to its use.

We will provide additional guidance on the process for agreement of a notification for an R&D activity and requests for extension of time to provide greater clarity for operators. There is no statutory right of appeal regarding agreement or rejection of a notification, however an operator would be able to appeal against the regulatory decision in accordance with the Environment Agency’s procedure under the Regulators’ Code.

Prior notification must be made 14 calendar days before the proposed operational phase of the activity or to extend a previous notification beyond 12 months.  We will endeavour to respond in a timely manner to notified activities and strongly advise communication with us regarding proposed R&D activities at an early stage to enable an efficient process.

An application for a variation to the installation permit would have to be made in good time for any permanent solution after a successful trial. Information gathered by the operator during the R&D activity would help to support the variation application.

The standard rules work in conjunction with the existing installation permit including its location and condition limits and so can only apply within the permitted boundary where there is regulatory control, and in association with the other permitted activity. Extension to a permit boundary can take place but only by applying separately to vary the permit.

Q3. Would any of the requirements prevent existing operators from using the proposed standard rules?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 5
• no – 7
• don’t know – 4

Summary of comments received

Respondents expressed some similar concerns about barriers to using the rules as in question 2, including:

• the 6-month period not being long enough for research and development activity
• clarification about R&D activity being extended after 6 months
• a request for clarity about whether preparatory works are included within the 6-month period
• only allowing activity within a restrictive permit boundary
• concern around whether notifications will be agreed within a 14-day period and what our turnaround time would be

One respondent stated that some of their consolidated permits also included waste operations and that limiting the scope of the rules to installation activities and those activities associated with the permitted activity would provide a barrier to the use of the standard rules. Also, clarification was sought about whether medium combustion plant and specified generators listed as directly associated activities would be within scope of the permit.

Another respondent had concerns regarding the timeframe for varying existing permits to include the R&D standard rules. They stated that feedback from industry was that it can take many months to process a permit variation and that this could discourage some operators from using the approach.

One comment was made that emissions resulting from an R&D activity are either not known or uncertain and emissions assessment is part of the objective of a trial. Therefore, there may be a lack of data to populate the H1 risk assessment.

A suggestion was made about the proposed standard rule variation charges to have a single flat fee based on the higher rate for specified waste management activities.

Further comments raised were:

• that requirements for containment may be too onerous
• experience would have to be built on using the H1 risk assessment tool
• that it appeared inconsistent to have standard rules permit alongside an existing permit

Our response

Permitted waste operations are not within scope for these standard rules. We will be evaluating the effectiveness of this rule set once it is in use to determine if the same approach can be used for other types of regulated facility.

We can confirm that any directly associated activities would be within the scope of the standard rule.

The application process for determining a standard rules variation to a bespoke permit would be a more streamlined and timely transactional process.

The proposed R&D activity would also have to meet the requirements of the generic risk assessment and existing permit conditions alongside the H1 assessment based on known or estimated risks from emissions. The standard rules are designed to work in conjunction with the existing installation permit.

There is a difference in the resource needed to process a permit application for a specified waste management activity due to the technical competence check requirement, which is reflected in our proposed charge.

Any requirement for containment would rely on the existing permit conditions and the assessment of risk.

5. Responses to question 4 and 5 and our response

Questions 4 to 5 relate to the assessment of risk for the proposals.

Q4. Do you agree that the risks associated with the activity are identified by the generic risk assessment?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 13
• no – 1
• don’t know – 2

Summary of comments received

Two respondents agreed that the risks associated with R&D were reflected in the generic risk assessment but commented that emissions and risks can only be estimated for R&D activity and as such it is difficult to predict every potential risk.

A comment was made that under the noise and vibration section of the generic risk assessment that clarification should be made regarding the risks and whether the noise and vibration assessment relates to the R&D facility alone or including the existing noise levels at the installation to provide a cumulative impact assessment.

Our response

The standard rules sit alongside the generic risk assessment and require the operator to monitor emissions and cease activities if they are not insignificant.

For noise and vibration assessment, the generic risk assessment relates to the R&D standard rules. We will amend the generic risk assessment to reflect this. However, a risk assessment of overall impact will need to be reflected as part of the management system for the site under the installation permit requirements.

Q5. Do you agree with the approach for operators to assess each R&D activity using the H1 risk assessment tool?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 9
• no – 6
• don’t know – 1

Summary of comments received

Most responses were in favour of the H1 risk assessment approach.

Three respondents expressed concern that some aspects of the current H1 risk assessment tool were under maintenance and unavailable, referring applicants to other guidance. A question was raised regarding how often the tool is revised.

It was also suggested that the proposal should not be restricted to only the H1 risk assessment tool, but an equivalent alternative should be allowed.

Further comments raised were:

• time would be needed for potential applicants to become familiar and gain experience in use of the H1 risk assessment tool and an understanding of the technical capability and time to carry out an assessment
• clarity on whether the H1 risk assessment tool is set up to assess novel technology and can it be based on projected estimates if there is no comparative data
• the H1 risk assessment tool is conservative and may place too stringent a test to screen out all impacts and therefore not allowing trials to take place

Our response

The H1 risk assessment tool is used commonly for bespoke permit applications and guidance on how to develop risk assessments and carry out the calculations required for the risk assessment and to screen out emissions is available on GOV.UK. The tool and guidance are updated as required. The proposal for allowing research and development to be notified under standard rules linked to the H1 risk assessment tool is a precautionary approach that will be reviewed after implementation. We agree that equivalent alternatives can be allowed under the rule set as it is consistent with the approach we already take for bespoke permit applications.

6. Responses to question 6 and our response

Question 6 relates to the requirement for prior notification of a research and development activity.

Q6. Do you agree with the requirements for the notification form?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 11
• no – 4
• don’t know – 1

Summary of comments received

Most respondents agreed with the requirements of the notification form.

One respondent disagreed on the basis that an H1 risk assessment was required. Another disagreed on the basis that they had not yet seen the notification form.

One suggestion was for the form to include emission points and to identify what emissions or substances are within the list provided under the nature of the R&D activity.

Our response

The use of the H1 risk assessment tool underpins the approach that is proposed. The draft standard rules in the consultation included the requirements of the notification form.

We will amend the requirements for the notification form to include emission points and to identify emissions or substances.

7. Responses to question 7 and our response

Question 7 relates to the potential economic impacts of the introduction of the new standard rules and helps in our consideration of the growth duty.

Q7. Are there any potential economic impacts, either positive or negative, that the introduction of the standard rules could have on your business?

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 9
• no – 3
• don’t know - 4

Summary of comments received

Supportive comments of the approach were made by several respondents including:

• having the ability to quickly innovate by reducing permit variation delays will support positive economic impacts and is therefore supported
• it may reasonably be expected where a standard rules permit could be used to carry out R&D activities, it would speed up the process and require less involved assessments, which would have a financial benefit
• yes, the introduction of the standard rules could have potential economic impacts
• allowing a more pragmatic and quicker route to permitting such research and development activities should support the UK cement sector in its goal to become Net Zero
• allowing the use of a standard rules approach to enable R&D activities would deliver a significant cost reduction compared to incorporating this through a simple or bespoke variation process

One respondent commented that they could not assess the administrative burden of the proposal. They pointed out that they could apply to vary their installation permits as a standby measure but that could impose an administrative burden if only one trial was conducted, or if the potential for a trial was never realised. They questioned if this would be the only option going forward. A suggestion was made to reduce the application fee and increase the deployment fee to encourage more operators to vary their permits to allow R&D so that they are ready to use and to reduce timescales for an R&D project.

Two comments related to the fact that the proposal introduces more regulatory requirements than the existing system using regulatory position statement or local enforcement positions.

A number of questions were also raised regarding the clarity of the process, including:

• What happens if there is a long delay before the trial goes ahead from when the notification was sent?
• Whether decisions of approval are made locally or with a governance committee?
• Would new notifications and associated charges be needed if the process is adapted or a new piece of kit added during R&D?
• What would be the next steps if an R&D trial was successful? If there was a delay between the end of a trial and the issue of a variation of the permit this may inhibit development of the solution.

Our response

The process for applying to vary an installation permit to add this standard rule is a transactional one that should mean efficient delivery of the permit variation at lower cost.

The application fees are set to reflect the work done in determining the installation variation and so cannot be reduced further. We will keep these under review however to ensure the cost matches the work carried out.

The new process brings R&D activity at existing installations within the legal framework for permits so that they can be dealt with in a clear and consistent framework.

The 12-month period to carry out the R&D activity can still take place if there is a delay in it starting providing that the details of the trial and the environmental risk remain the same and we are kept updated on the likely start date.

Assessment of notifications of R&D activities once the permit has been varied are made at the local level but there may be some central oversight for any complex decisions. Where processes are adapted then local officers should be kept informed. In some cases, a new notification may be required depending on the complexity and assessment of risk.

The results of the monitoring of any R&D activity will be key to supporting the future variation of a permit for a permanent solution without undue delay.

8. Responses to questions 8 and 9 and our response

These questions help to identify examples of where the approach can be used and any other comments.

Q8. Please provide details of any research and development activity that might benefit from this approach.

There were 10 responses to this question.

Summary of comments received

Examples provided of R&D projects that could potentially make benefit from this approach included:

• a biochar plant and a thermal carbonisation unit
• alternative fuels, raw materials, hydrogen use and carbon capture, as well as other techniques and technologies that could be developed in the future
• development of advanced anaerobic digestion (AD) technologies to improve biogas yields and reduce operational costs; testing of enhanced composting techniques to improve the quality of organic materials and deliver better environmental outcomes and innovation in emissions control technologies that could lower emissions and increase production efficiency
• a proposal for insect bioconversion which may benefit from the new approach

Thank you to those who responded to this question as the examples will help to refine the scope of the standard rules and to evaluate the effectiveness of the standard rule in supporting innovation.

Q9. Please provide any further comments or observations that you would like us to consider as part of this consultation.

There were 9 responses to this question.

Summary of comments received

A comment was made about the inconsistency between the standard rules and the generic risk assessment in relation to the 6-month period.  The rules say the activity must stop 6 months from the date the activity starts but the risk assessment says it must stop 6 months from the date it is notified.

A request was made for clarification as to whether the ‘operator’ of the test facility must also be the site operator.

One respondent emphasised the need for clear and concise guidance on what qualifies as an R&D trial under the standard rule to avoid confusion. It was suggested that examples could be provided.

Other comments were made that have been addressed elsewhere in our response, including:

• clarification of whether ‘preparatory work’ is included in the 6-month period.
• resourcing and turnaround times for standard permits
• refusal of notification and any right of appeal
• request to increase the 6-month period to a year

A suggestion was made for us to consider ongoing innovations in the use of regulatory sandboxes such as an initiative in France that allows new innovative uses of wastewater.

In relation to the assessment of risk for the R&D activity, it was commented that, as well as site-specific risks, there was a need to take account of the broader national drivers for innovation projects, such as climate change and the circular economy. It was suggested that variations in site risk should be balanced against the potential to introduce a solution that might reduce greenhouse gases or reduce dependence on finite resources on a national scale.

Our response

We will amend the generic risk assessment to clarify that the activity must stop 12 months after the date the operational activity starts, unless an extension is notified and agreed.

We can confirm that the standard rules relate to the permit holder who is the operator of the facility. They would also be responsible for the application to vary the installation permit to include the standard rules and be responsible for compliance with the rules rather than any third party carrying out activities on the site.

Suggestions regarding the use of other regulatory sandbox approaches to allow innovation in environmental permitting have been noted.

We will be providing guidance to help operators notifying us of an R&D operation under the standard rules which should help to provide the clarity sought.

This proposal is one initiative to allow R&D and is based on the risks being determined as low. In circumstances where the site-specific risks might be greater but with longer term potential gains for the environment there is still an option to vary the permit to allow this to happen.

9. Next steps

The responses we received have provided information that supports us in producing a set of standard rules to allow operators of existing installations to carry out research and development activities.

We have now reviewed the draft rules and generic risk assessment to produce final versions.

See SR2024 No 1: research and development at a Part A(1) installation.

If you wish to follow up on your responses or have questions relating to this consultation response document, then please contact us at RegReform@environment-agency.gov.uk and include ’Standard rules consultation no 28’ in the subject of your email.

10. Annex

Organisations that responded to this consultation:

• Camira Fabrics
• Chemical Industries Association
• Confederation of Paper Industries
• Invica Industries
• Mineral Products Association Limited
• REA - The Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology
• Severn Trent Water
• SSE Thermal
• Thames Water - Engineering Innovation
• UK Power Generator’s Joint Environmental Programme (JEP) Emissions Monitoring and Permitting Working Group.
• United Utilities Water Ltd
• Veolia
• Yorkshire Water

And 3 responses from individuals.