Consultation outcome

Time and materials and medium combustion plant: overview of feedback and our response

Updated 1 July 2025

The majority of feedback agreed with our time and materials proposals. Responses indicated support for the proposals, with some sharing concerns about the impact of charges and others commenting on the level of service they receive. The response to our ‘additional comments’ question suggested that better transparency could improve our proposals. Feedback on Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and public information) (REPPIR) and medium combustion plants is covered in the following sections.

Support for proposals – feedback

Some respondents told us they agreed with the time and materials hourly rate charge increases, they said:

• Cost is irrelevant to make nuclear accidents, buildings safe.
• The increase to £100 per hour for water pollution incident activity is reasonable and aligns with the “polluter pays” principle, ensuring that those responsible for pollution bear the costs of remediation and prevention.
• Agree with the increase from £84 to £100 per hour to recover costs for pollution prevention and remediation. Suggestion: Provide clear breakdowns of costs in invoices issued to operators.
• If a company or individual asks for your services then your fees are your fees and they can either take them up or not.
• Poor planning decisions lead to significant pollution of our land and waterways. This has to be improved and properly funded.

Support for proposals – our response

Respondents were supportive of our charge proposals to fully cover the cost of our regulation across various activities that are funded by hourly rate charges. They acknowledged the checks and safety benefits that a regulator brings to the range of regimes covered by our hourly rates, which includes the nuclear sector, control of major accident hazards, and pollution incidents.

Some respondents who were supportive of the charge adjustments also requested that we should maintain our standards on:

• transparency and itemisation of costs when we bill
• continuing to apply the polluter pays principle over charging compliant permit holders
• reducing pollution to the land, water and air in England

Our charges are modelled to fully recover the cost of the officer undertaking the work. This is explained in more detail in our guide how we calculate our charges. When we bill customers, we always itemise what we have billed for, and we can provide an explanation of any charge.

Impact for customers – feedback

Some respondents told us that the time and materials hourly rate charge increases were too high. We received the following responses:

• Too expensive, it will discourage people and businesses from engaging and they will just carry out illegal waste activities.
• There should not be a charge. The EA should be a leader in this field and should be providing information freely.
• The living wage is less than £13, so why are you wishing to charge £100/hour?
• Society wants this therefore society should pay, not the applicant.
• You basically need more power and more funds and this should come from national government.
• An increase above inflation cannot be justified

Impact for customers – our response

We recognise that economic circumstances are having a significant impact on many individuals and businesses affected by our charge increases. We understand the pressure this puts on people and, before proposing any charge increase, we thoroughly consider alternative options to ensure we deliver our duties in the most effective and efficient way possible.

Inflation and rising costs impact our own service delivery in much the same way as any other organisation. In accordance with requirements of HM Treasury’s managing public money rules, we aim to fully recover the costs of regulatory services delivered to charge payers. Our activity requirements, efficiency savings and cost analysis are scrutinised internally, then by Defra and HM Treasury. We aim to fully recover the costs of regulatory services delivered to charge payers. Our activity requirements, efficiency savings and cost analysis are scrutinised internally, then by Defra and HM Treasury.

Our charges are calculated based on our direct and indirect costs, as set out in the guide how we calculate our charges. We do not make a profit, and the charge recovers the amount that it costs to have an officer in place to undertake that activity.

Some rates that are currently £100 per hour will stay set at £100 per hour, for example our approvals work, sites of high public interest, and enhanced pre-application advice.

Other rates need to increase to cover costs so that we do not operate at a loss. The main factors contributing to an increase in these rates are:

• corporate and support costs

• salaries

• inflation since the rates were last reviewed (mostly in 2018)

• increased employer national insurance contributions

• to cover any deficit carried by the charging regime

The proposed charging options were designed to recover the costs of regulation which has a positive environmental effect. Our charge proposals sought full cost recovery for the activities required to regulate individual charge payers. Activities presenting more environmental risk require more complex regulation or specialist technical expertise, so will typically result in higher charges. We will make the following changes:

• the nuclear rate changes from £286 per hour to £353 per hour to meet the cost of this activity; this rate was last reviewed in 2019 and the increase of 23.5% accounts for changes in our costs over that time
• the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) rate changes from £161 per hour to £264 per hour to meet the cost of this activity; this rate was last reviewed in 2018 and the increase of 64% accounts for changes in our costs since then
• our £84 per hour rates will increase by 19% to £100 to cover our costs; these rates remained static since they were introduced in 2018 and include the unplanned events rate which applies when significant or severe pollution incidents occur, or when permits are suspended for valid reasons
• the COMAH incident exercises rate of £84 per hour rate will also increase to £100 per hour
• the planning advice service, called sustainable places, changes from £100 per hour to £115 per hour (an increase of 15%); this rate was reviewed in 2018 and has remained static since then
• work on hydraulic fracturing plans, the definition of waste service and other nuclear work is changing from £125 per hour to £130 per hour (an increase of 4%); these rates have remained static since they were introduced

Some of the hourly rates are discretionary (for example, our enhanced pre-application advice, planning advice, definition of waste service, and new voluntary remediation service). This means they are optional services and are only paid for by willing customers. The customer pays VAT on these discretionary services.

Service we provide – feedback

Some responses expressed concern over the current levels of service. A few respondents went further to suggest there had been a decrease in efficiency since the last charge review in 2018. Some commented that the proposed charge increases would not improve the quality and efficiency of our service. Respondents said:

• EA not effective and being 20% more expensive will not change that.
• You should be increasing your productivity to reduce cost not charging more.
• The customer receives such a poor level of service, that this consultation is just about finding ways to generate funds, and not to actually deal with the poor level of service currently being experienced.
• Increasing the hourly rate has to deliver an improved service, although I doubt this will be achieved.
• Our rivers and waterways are an international disgrace and anything at all that improves this tragic situation has to be a move in the right direction.
• Poor budget management and poor management should not be rewarded. You should look first at controlling costs and seeing if you are getting value from contractors.

Service we provide – our response

Our teams work hard to make sure regulation is as effective and efficient as possible based on the available resources. Continuous improvement is a key aim across all of our work, and we always look to grow and develop experience and knowledge in teams. When we bring in the new charges, we will make sure our officers have been fully trained.

Customers will interact with us for a broad range of reasons. Some customers request a discretionary service that we quote for, whereas others will have our charges imposed on them in pollution or suspension situations. Irrespective of the type of advice or guidance we are providing, we will always act in the best interest of the environment and always aim to provide a high standard of customer service.

The updated charges for time and materials (hourly rates) will allow full cost recovery and full funding for the Environment Agency. These updated charges will therefore help provide a better service through increased funding for resource.

In contrast to the criticism of our service, respondents were also supportive of our charge proposals to fully cover the cost of our regulation across various activities that are funded by hourly rate charges. However, many individuals and companies wanted to better understand how charging relates to regulation in practice. They wanted to understand:

• exactly what the charges will pay for
• when increased levels of regulation would begin

The increase to the hourly rates is to fully cover the cost of front-line officers that carry out the regulation of permit holders. The charges specifically pay for the direct and indirect costs of officers providing regulation. Further details are included in the our guide on how we calculate our charges. The charges commence from 1 July 2025 and have an immediate impact on the affordability of our services.

Business approach – feedback

Respondents supported the polluter pays principle but often added that they thought we should look for other funding sources. Some said our charges could potentially lead to increased unregulated activity, others said:

• If this results in better enforcement and a reduction of the pollution of our land and waterways, it has to be a good manifestation of ‘the polluter pays’.
• I agree with the ‘polluter pays’ policy.

Business approach – our response

Our business approach was often supported by respondents, specifically the ‘polluter pays’ principle. We pass on the costs of our services to those that receive them. Our charges are designed so that up front work is billed though annual fees, whereas unplanned or unexpected work (like pollution incident response and recovery) is charged for separately and paid for directly by the polluter. We keep our services under review to make sure that costs are fair and do not inadvertently encourage illegal activity.

Time and materials – outcome and next steps

We will implement our proposed charges as outlined in the consultation on 1 July 2025. We are implementing the charges so we can continue to provide the regulation and services for environmental protection that is needed.

Nuclear off-site emergency plan testing (under REPPIR) – feedback

Feedback about the proposed charges included comments suggested the rates seemed high. However, most respondents felt the rates were appropriate because of the importance of safety at nuclear sites, and the specialised skill set of our staff involved in the work.

Some commented about the method of invoicing through local authorities, these respondents suggested we should handle invoices directly with operators.

Others said there should be an annual preview and agreement of estimated costs between the Environment Agency, local authorities and nuclear operators.

Other respondents said:

• Given the critical importance of accurate and effective off-site emergency plans for nuclear sites, it is essential that the Environment Agency can fully recover the costs associated with its participation in these exercises.
• The tiered rates also provide transparency and reflect the varying levels of expertise and resources required.
• Whilst we agree in principle to the charge - we do not agree with the local authority being involved in the invoicing…We would strongly recommend for designated authorities to invoice sites directly and not through the local authority.
• Before implementing a system of cost recovery, we ask that consideration is given to the EA agreeing MOUs with local authorities, with an annual review of estimated costs to be carried out between the EA and the LA in partnership with the local nuclear site operator.

Nuclear off-site emergency plan testing (under REPPIR) – our response

Invoicing process

We recognise that the proposed invoicing process would mean some administrative and record keeping work for local authorities. Local authorities and nuclear operators have suggested that bodies like the Environment Agency could invoice operators directly for work on off-site emergency plan testing.

Based on the REPPIR 2019 Approved Code of Practice and associated guidance, we think there is allowance for direct transaction between designated authorities and operators, particularly where that approach would reduce administrative work. 

Having considered the comments received during consultation, we will look at how a direct billing system might be implemented. This would need to be agreed with each local authority and operator.

Agreement of estimated costs

The detailed proposal for our charging scheme includes a cost planning element.

REPPIR says that the local authority should provide the operator with an estimate of costs and hours to be worked on testing emergency plans each year.

Partner agencies, including us, will supply details to the local authority as part of a combined estimate for the site operator to review and approve.

Nuclear off-site emergency plan testing (under REPPIR) – outcome and next steps

We will implement our proposed charges as outlined in the consultation on 1 July 2025.

Medium combustion plant – feedback

More respondents agreed than disagreed with the proposal to move to a fixed price approach for our medium combustions plant charge and amend the existing standard rules subsistence charges to make sure they are consistent. The majority of respondents who provided feedback made comments in support of the proposal:

• Mirroring our existing charges for standard rules permits is fair.
• Fixed rates are a better idea.
• This brings regulation of these permitted facilities in line with the approach used for others, so this is supported.
• We understand the logic of having standardised charges for standard rules and bespoke permits, as it provides greater cost certainty compared to variable time and materials charges.
• We agree with the proposed change to medium combustion plant annual subsistence charges. The proposed fixed rate charges will simplify charges for medium combustion plants and specified generators.
• This brings regulation of these permitted facilities in line with the approach used for others, so this is supported.

Medium combustion plant – our response

We will implement our proposal as outlined in the consultation. In 2018 we introduced an hourly rate for regulatory work we carried out on bespoke MCP permits and a fixed rate for other MCP. Through this review, the work needed for regulating each bespoke MCP did not vary, so bespoke MCP will also have a fixed rate. This charge means all medium combustion plant charges are now set at fixed prices.

We are including a 50% reduction for generators that are used purely for back-up purposes. This reduction is based on the expectation that back-up generators will need a reduced amount of regulation. However, we will still need to make sure emissions are minimised and that back-up medium combustion plants are operated and maintained properly.

The decision to use a sliding scale of charge bands for sites with differing sizes or quantities of generators is modelled on the amount of time it takes us to regulate and check them periodically. The differing size and quantity of the generators on site require a different amount of resource and time but is no different for standard rules or bespoke permits. Therefore, the sliding scale of charges already used for standard rules permits lends itself well for bespoke permits.

Medium combustion plant – outcome and next steps

We will implement our proposed charges as outlined in the consultation on 1 July 2025.