Consultation outcome

Environment Agency charges consultation on radioactive substances regulation (non-nuclear sites): consultation response

Updated 1 April 2026

This response document confirms the outcome of our consultation and summarises the feedback we received. New charges will be implemented on 1 April 2026.

1. Introduction

The Environment Agency has a statutory duty to regulate the use of radioactive substances at non-nuclear sites under Schedule 23 of the The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. This regulatory work is funded through various permit and subsistence charges. The consultation proposed an increase to these charges within the The Environment Agency (Environmental Permitting and Abstraction Licensing) (England) Charging Scheme 2022.

We asked consultees whether they agreed with the proposal to increase these charges to cover the cost to provide our regulatory services for radioactive substances (non-nuclear sites).

We reviewed all comments submitted within the consultation feedback before considering whether it may be appropriate to make changes to our original proposals. These are the main themes we identified in the feedback:

• how charge affects customers
• charge scheme approach
• service we provide
• support or partially supports proposals

The consultation feedback helped us to understand respondents’ concerns and any issues relating to our proposals. It was also valuable to hear from those respondents who supported our proposals.

2. Outcome

We have considered all consultation feedback and assessed whether we need to make changes to our proposals.

After careful consideration of all the responses and comments, we will make the changes as outlined in the consultation document.

The increases to our charges will allow us to fully recover our costs in regulating the use of radioactive substances at non-nuclear sites, ensuring the environment is protected.

We will shortly publish our updated charging scheme. The revised charges will apply from 1 April 2026. You can view these documents on GOV.UK:

• The Environment Agency (Environmental Permitting and Abstraction Licensing) (England) Charging Scheme 2022
• How the Environment Agency calculates its charges

3. How we ran the consultation

The consultation ran for 6 weeks from 6 January 2026 to 17 February 2026. It was hosted on GOV.UK and our consultations website (Citizen Space). It was open to anybody to take part. Those who preferred to respond by email or post were able to request a copy of the consultation document and response form instead of responding online.

We ran the consultation in line with our legal requirements to consult following the Cabinet Office’s consultation principles guidelines. We notified ministers of our intention to consult.

It was important for us to give our customers the opportunity to understand the proposals and the impact they will have. We encouraged our customers to give us their views through the consultation and publicised it openly.

We contacted all permit holders (around 1,200 customers) and key trade associations directly to inform them of the consultation and invite them to take part. We also released press statements to reach other potential stakeholders and the general public.

4. Overview of responses

In total, we received 47 responses to this consultation. All responses were through our online consultation tool (Citizen Space). We did not receive any responses by email or letter.

The 47 responses were submitted by:

• 35 organisations or businesses
• 12 individuals

Consultees described their main business as being:

• hospital or NHS Trust (15)
• university (8)
• industry (18)
• not applicable (6)

Annex 1 gives detailed information about the responses to all consultation questions and a summary of the themes we identified in the consultation feedback.

Annex 2 gives a list of organisations and groups that participated in the consultation. These represent a broad range of private and public sector organisations that we regulate.

We would like to thank all those who participated in the consultation and took the time to provide this valuable feedback.

5. Consultation feedback and our response

This section includes a summary of feedback relating to the main themes identified in consultation responses. We include our response under each of the main themes.

How charge affects customers – feedback

Many respondents commented on the economic challenges faced by businesses and public sector organisations. Concerns were from respondents about ongoing affordability of the proposed increase to charges. Some said they were operating within budgets that had already been fixed for 2026.

Other concerns were raised about choices that may have to be made due to the increased costs. Examples of these responses are:

“I understand a proportionate increase is needed but this is a significant increase that would have a significant impact on already struggling businesses.”

“Already very expensive. We would prefer to spend the money on staffing/equipment/training.”

“The proposed price increases are far in excess of inflationary increases. The single step change in pricing will be challenging for organisations to meet.”

“Budgetary constraints are already too tight - increasing cost of EA permit will mean reducing patient activity to remain within budget.”

“Introducing such significant increases with limited notice feels short-sighted and creates real planning challenges. Predictability is essential for businesses to plan and manage compliance costs effectively.”

How charge affects customers – our response

We understand that our customers are operating under challenging financial constraints and increases to our charges will add to these pressures. Our fees were originally set in 2018, and inflation and costs have increased since then. This has impacted our own service delivery in the same was as any other organisation. We consulted on a cost of service increase in 2025 and this has gone some way to address the funding differences. However, to allow us to cover the full cost of our service we need a further increase in our charges for regulation of radioactive substances at non-nuclear sites.

We must follow the guidance given in HM Treasury’s managing public money rules 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. To help explain what we include when creating or reviewing a charge, we have published guidance on How the Environment Agency calculates its charges on GOV.UK.

Having carefully considered the feedback, we will implement our proposals as outlined in the consultation.

Charge scheme approach – feedback

The recurring feedback here was about the proposed costs being too high, particularly around more simple permit variations. Customers felt these need less regulatory effort by our staff and this should be reflected in the cost. Some examples of the responses we received are:

“Fee’s for variations in particular are too high.”

“Variations are very expensive so Trusts tend to put in an everything that could be coming down the road and have higher limits than may be necessary. This is perhaps an unintended side effect.”

“I think for sites operating with more than one activity should see a set percentage increase on the total fee and not have to absorb an increased cost in each activity separately.”

“The proposed hikes are excessive and fail to reflect the level of regulatory oversight provided. This creates an undue financial burden on institutions already struggling with fiscal constraints.”

Charge scheme approach – our response

We recognise that resource requirements differ depending on the level of regulatory work needed. For example, a new permit application for a complex site will take more time to determine than a minor variation to an existing permit. Similarly, when inspecting a site with one radioactive source this may not be as complex and time consuming as a site with numerous radioactive sources.

Our charges are modelled to reflect the costs of an officer carrying out permitting and compliance work for the various radioactive substances activities at non-nuclear sites.

We will implement our proposal as outlined in the consultation.

Service we provide – feedback

Respondents were primarily concerned with how the proposed increases offer value-for-money. These are some examples of the responses:

“…having a scale of cost increases that reflects the complexity of the task, and implementation of security requirements is a good idea. However, these cost increases should also come alongside improved service and support from the EA.”

“If EA are to propose the substantial increases in subsistence fees then operators can quite reasonably expect a resulting increase in responsiveness to queries and availability of inspectors, quality of technical work, availability of technical guidance.”

“We feel this cannot be justified given these are not complex permits and the waste involved is very low level and a fraction of the permit limits as calculated. In turn this means site audits are minimal in most cases as only involve reviewing produced water inventories.”

“I think that the main assurance that is needed is that the level of work done is justified. For example, at high complexity sites there are annual visits. However, these tend to be high compliance sites with maybe little change and there is little value added by annual visits.”

“Minor variations can be as simple as a name change of the business and yet the costs have nearly doubled. Our last normal variation …took three months to process, and I would question whether or not these cost increases will have any meaningful improvement on efficiency.”

Service we provide – our response

We recognise that our customers want an efficient, cost-effective service that is proportionate to the level of regulatory effort required. When we review our charges, any efficiencies to our services that we have or could make are taken into account, as well as any other costs in providing the regulatory service. To help explain what we include when creating or reviewing a charge, we have published guidance on How the Environment Agency calculates its charges on GOV.UK.

We will implement our proposals as outlined in the consultation.

Supports or partially supports proposals – feedback

Some responses included comments that agreed or partially agreed with the proposed increase to charges, recognising that we need to be able to fully recover our costs. Some examples of these comments are:

“…the agency should collect fees which allow them to continue to operate effectively thereby ensuring non-nuclear sites are compliant with their respective permits.”

“The EA are operating in an environment that has increasing costs and therefore need to increase their consultancy cost to be able to continue to function.”

“We are comfortable with the reasoning and basis for the charges given the overall costs involved.”

“If this is what is required to recoup costs then I don’t feel it is unfair. However, the NHS is going to struggle with this level of increase….”

“The charges are in line with inflation, and reflects the niche expertise of staff with specialist knowledge.”

Supports or partially supports proposals – our response

We appreciate the positive feedback from respondents and the recognition of our skilled staff.

We will be implementing our proposals to increase our charges as outlined in the consultation.

6. Annex 1: Summary of consultation responses

This annex sets out the responses we received to our consultation on the proposed charge increases to cover the cost of our service for radioactive substances regulation (non-nuclear sites).

The consultation included questions on:

• our charge proposal
• additional questions

We received 47 responses through our online consultation tool (Citizen Space). We did not receive any emails or letters with comments relating to the consultation.

Additional questions

Within the online tool we included an ‘additional question’ section to provide us with an understanding of who responded, and to help us better analyse the consultation feedback.

We asked if consultees were giving a response as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. The 47 responses (all responses were online) stated:

• responding as an individual – 12
• responding on behalf of an organisation, group or trade association – 35
• other – 0
• no answer given – 0

Consultees described their main business as being:

• a hospital or NHS trust – 15
• a university – 8
• industry – 18
• not applicable – 6

Consultation questions

Questions are set out in the same format as they were presented in the online consultation tool and response form. Multiple-choice questions gave respondents the option to select one response. These were followed by a free text box for comments.

For each question, we report all the multiple-choice option responses. These are followed by a list of themes identified most frequently in the free text comments.

Themes are given in descending order with the most frequently identified first.

Question 1: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed increases to application charges for radioactive substances regulation (non-nuclear sites) as shown in table 2?

This question received more negative responses (28) than positive responses (6):

• strongly agree – 0
• agree – 6
• neither agree nor disagree – 9
• disagree – 3
• strongly disagree – 25
• do not know – 3
• not applicable – 1
• did not answer – 0

Comments relating to this question were submitted by 38 respondents to the consultation (81%). The following themes were identified:

• ‘how charge affects customers’ – 24
• ‘charge scheme approach’ – 17
• ‘service we provide’ – 13
• ‘supports or partially supports proposal’ – 9

One comment was not charge related, 2 responses left duplicate comments (these were from different addresses) and 9 respondents left no comment.

Question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed increase to subsistence charges for radioactive substances regulation (non-nuclear sites) as shown in table 3?

This question received more negative responses (32) than positive responses (5):

• strongly agree – 0
• agree – 5
• neither agree nor disagree – 8
• disagree – 9
• strongly disagree – 23
• do not know – 2
• not applicable – 0
• did not answer – 0

Comments relating to this question were submitted by 38 respondents to the consultation (81%). The following themes were identified:

• ‘how charge affects customers’ – 30
• ‘charge scheme approach’ – 16
• ‘service we provide’ – 10
• ‘supports or partially supports proposal’ – 7

The following theme was identified less often:

• ‘issue with consultation’ – 1

Two responses left duplicate comments (from different addresses) and 9 respondents left no comment.

7. Annex 2: List of consultation participants and ‘other’

List of organisations or businesses that gave a name

The following organisation or business names were provided by respondents who gave permission for their responses to be published. (Names are not included if the organisation or business has not given permission for us to publish their response.)

• Advance Tapes International Ltd
• Alliance Medical
• ASCO UK Limited
• Balfour Beatty Vinci
• Bearl Equine Clinic
• Cambridge University Hospitals NHSFT
• CAN Group
• Cargill (Hull site, HU67PH)
• Cerevance Ltd
• City St George’s
• Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
• East Anglian Regional Radiation Protection Service
• Formica Ltd
• Kent Renewable Energy Limited
• L2 Business Consulting Limited
• Mineral Products Association Ltd
• Newcastle Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
• Newcastle University
• Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust
• Quorn Foods
• Royal Marsden NHSFT
• SafeRad Ltd
• Scintacor Ltd.
• Skymark international
• Star Energy Group plc
• The Alexandra Hospital (CHG)
• University of Sussex
• University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS FT (Nuclear Medicine Service)
• University of Cambridge
• University of Sheffield
• WALTERS LAND LTD