Consultation outcome

Proposed standard rules permits for small sewage discharges: summary of consultation responses

Updated 2 February 2026

Introduction

The Environment Agency is responsible for regulating ‘water discharge activities’ and ‘groundwater activities’ as defined in Schedule 21 and Schedule 22 to the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 (EPR) respectively.

The EPR allows us to develop standard rules for certain activities. We base the rules on our understanding of the risks from the proposed activity. The purpose of the consultation was to seek views on proposed new standard rules for the following activities, all of which are currently regulated using bespoke permits:

• discharges of treated sewage effluent to ground of more than 2 cubic metres per day but not more than 5 cubic metres per day (SR2025 No 5)
• discharges of treated sewage effluent to ground of no greater than 1.5 cubic metres per day which are discharged using a shallow drainage system that does not conform to the British Standard, and which are replacing an existing discharge to surface water or to ground (SR2025 No 6)
• discharges of treated sewage effluent to surface water which achieve secondary treatment using equipment that does not conform to the British Standard or where the receiving watercourse does not always have flow, or both (SR2025 No 7)

We also sought views on the generic risk assessments associated with each standard rules set.

How we ran the consultation

The formal online consultation ran on the Environment Agency’s Citizen Space website for 6 weeks from 1 October 2025 to 12 November 2025. It was promoted through the trade association, British Water.

Prior to the formal consultation, we engaged with some key stakeholder groups that included public bodies, professional organisations and industry.

We received 13 responses in total from:

• 4 installers or engineers of sewage treatment systems
• 2 manufacturers of sewage treatment systems
• 2 organisations operating private sewage treatment systems or a sewerage undertaker
• 3 members of the public
• 1 Environmental Health Officer
• 1 non-governmental organisation

We asked 17 questions. We asked the same 3 questions for each of the 3 proposed permits, and these were:

• whether the respondent agreed with our proposal to use the permit
• whether the respondent agreed with the rules and constraints in the proposed permit
• whether any of the requirements would prevent prospective operators from using the proposed permit
• whether they agreed that the risks associated with the activity are identified by the generic risk assessment
• whether they agreed that measures to manage, mitigate or reduce the environmental risks are appropriate

The remaining 2 questions related to potential business impacts and whether the respondent had any further comments or observations.

Not all respondents provided an answer to every question, and some respondents provided comments of a general nature instead of answering the specific questions asked within the consultation.

Summary of key findings and actions we will take

The consultation responses received showed that respondents were split on whether they agreed with the proposed use of these permits. Respondents usefully highlighted a range of technical issues that they felt should be addressed to make the permits more practical to use.

Several respondents disagreed with the proposed permits due to wider concerns about the regulation of sewage discharges which are not directly related to the consultation. For example water company infrastructure capacity or land ownership concerns. One respondent agreed with the idea of the proposed permits but stated ‘disagree’ to the use of the permits because they felt that some changes were necessary to make them workable. One respondent stated that they supported the proposed permits but did not offer detailed comments. When these points are taken into consideration, most respondents were supportive of our proposal to use SR2025 No 5 (discharges of treated sewage effluent to ground of more than 2 cubic metres per day but not more than 5 cubic metres per day) but were divided on the use of the other 2 proposed permits.

Respondents generally felt that the risks associated with the activities had been identified in the generic risk assessments but disagreed with the rules and constraints proposed. They also felt that the measures to manage, mitigate or reduce the environmental risk were not appropriate. A few key issues common to all 3 proposed permits were identified by multiple respondents, and these were:

• the difficulty of establishing the location of potable water supplies within 250 metres of the discharges
• the difficulty of identifying other discharges within 50 metres of the proposed discharge
• the screening distance for public foul sewers
• the lack of definition for ‘competent’ person
• the achievability of the proposed numeric effluent quality limits
• the appropriateness and practicality of the condition requiring an annual effluent quality test for some discharges

We have considered the responses and reviewed the proposed standard rules permits and supporting generic risk assessments. We intend to:

• reduce the screening distance for potable water supplies to 125 metres on all the proposed standard rules permits
• link the screening distance for public foul sewer to the number of properties that the discharge is serving – this will apply to all the proposed standard rules permits and follows the same methodology used in the general binding rules for small sewage discharges
• amend the ammoniacal nitrogen effluent quality limit for discharges to ground on Principal or Secondary A aquifers from 5 to 10 milligrams per litre (as N) – this will also apply to discharges to watercourses which do not always have flow
• remove the requirement for an annual test of effluent quality on all the proposed standard rules permits

We do not intend to change the screening distance for other sewage effluent discharges and will consider the comments received on the definition of ‘competent person’.

We will produce final versions of the standard rules permits and generic risk assessments for publication on GOV.UK.

Responses to questions 1 to 17 and our response

Questions 1 to 5 relate to discharges of treated sewage effluent to ground of more than 2 cubic metres per day but not more than 5 cubic metres per day (SR2025 No 5).

Q1. Do you agree with our proposal to use standard rules permits for discharges of treated sewage effluent to ground of more than 2 cubic metres per day but not more than 5 cubic metres per day?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 0
• agree – 4
• neither agree nor disagree – 2
• disagree – 1
• strongly disagree – 3

Comments

Summary of comments:

• the quicker permit processing times for standard rules would be welcome
• a simpler application and management process would be proportionate to the environmental risk
• if a foul drainage system is designed correctly then up to 5m³ can be discharged to ground without issue

Response

No response is required to these comments.

Comments

Summary of comments:

• we would like to see rigour in assessment of the applications to ensure that the discharge location is soundly represented and the true risk to the environment is fully understood
• an overly simplified application process could result in the provision of misleading information from applicants

Response

The risks to the environment from the activities covered by these standard rules permits have been identified within the accompanying generic risk assessments and mitigated using appropriate conditions on the permit. This means that applications require less information to be submitted by the applicant than would be required for a higher-risk bespoke permit application. However, when applications are processed, they will be screened to check the accuracy of the discharge location and compliance with the various stand-off distances specified within the permit conditions (for example from sensitive habitats).

Comment

The Environment Agency should check drainage field calculations.

Response

Processing of standard rules permits will not include a check on drainage field calculations, as this is something which is the responsibility of the designer, installer and operator.

Comment

There should be greater consideration of the collective impacts from small sewage discharges.

Response

Consideration of the collective impacts from small sewage discharges takes place through the Environment Agency’s work on river basin management planning , which identifies locations where this type of discharge may be causing the water body to not achieve good status under the Water Framework Directive. Proliferation is also controlled by restricting the use of these permits to locations that are not within 50 metres of another discharge.

Comments

Summary of comments:

• there should be no discharge of treated sewage effluent. Water companies must be made to invest in their infrastructure so that this is not necessary
• all discharges should be recorded at the very least
• greater training and education are needed in the off-mains industry so that the various regulations are interpretated correctly and systems are installed correctly. This accreditation would then need to be signposted to by the EA in all permitting documentation

Response

This consultation relates to how private sewage discharges that require a permit under the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 are regulated by the Environment Agency. The issues concerning the extent to which sewerage undertakers should be required to improve their networks, whether all private sewage discharges should be recorded and the level of training within the industry are not within the scope of the consultation. 

Comment

The rules do not allow for adequate consultation with the landowners involved. Any discharge should not be permitted under any circumstances without the EA being absolutely certain that affected landowners and watercourse owners have been informed.

Response

An environmental permit does not give an operator any right or permission to discharge where they do not own the land where they intend to discharge. It is the responsibility of the applicant to secure any necessary permissions. For further information see guidance on how to apply for a bespoke permit.

Comment

The proposal seems to suggest expanding the definition of small sewage discharge from 2 cubic metres per day to 5 cubic metres per day principally to accommodate those operators who need to discharge more than the current threshold volume, whereas arguably they should instead be required to either reduce the overall volume of their discharges or join the main sewerage network.

Response

The proposed permit is designed for operators who are discharging volumes of effluent that are relatively small, but which do not meet the 2 cubic metres per day restriction within the general binding rules. The proposed permit does not alter the definition but instead provides a regulatory option that is proportionate to the risk from these discharges.

Q2. Do you agree with the rules and constraints in the proposed standard rules for discharges of treated sewage effluent to ground of more than 2 cubic metres per day but not more than 5 cubic metres per day?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 2
• agree – 2
• neither agree nor disagree – 1
• disagree – 1
• strongly disagree – 4

Comments

Summary of comments:

• the requirement for secondary treatment will reduce the use of septic tanks and therefore pollution
• I agree that septic tanks should be phased out and that only secondary treated effluent should be discharged

Response

No response is required to these comments.

Comments

Summary of comments:

• it will be very difficult to know whether there are any private water supplies within the proposed 250m radius from the discharge as there are no public records
• locating a discharge more than 250m away from a potable abstraction will be difficult in areas where private water supplies are common

Response

The proposed standard rules permits need to strike a balance between being practicable for use and protecting water supplies from pollution. However, several respondents have commented that the proposed 250 metre screening distance is too large and therefore impractical.

We have reconsidered this condition and intend to reduce the screening distance to 125 metres. This is greater than the 50 metres used for discharges to ground within the general binding rules due to the higher discharge volume allowed by the proposed standard rules permit SR2025 No 5.

With respect to identifying the presence of private water supplies, local authorities will keep records as part of their duties under The Private Water Supplies (England) Regulations 2016 and a request could be made for information on the presence of supplies within a specified radius of the proposed discharge.

Comments

Summary of comments:

• the proposed screening distance of 200m for a public foul sewer is too large and it can often be impractical and costly to connect to public foul sewer
• some sewerage undertakers do not have adequate capacity in their public foul sewers in rural areas and requiring connection would stop development and increase problems with Combined Sewer Overflows

Response

We have reconsidered this condition and intend to link the screening distance for public foul sewer to the number of properties that the discharge is serving. This follows the same methodology used in the general binding rules for small sewage discharges. For a single domestic property, the screening distance will be 30 metres.

The issue of capacity in public foul sewers in rural areas is outside the scope of the consultation.

Comment

It may be difficult to locate a new drainage field more than 10 metres away from every ditch.

Response

We will consider the condition relating to proximity of a discharge to a ditch. 

Comments

Summary of comments:

• the permit states that no part of the infiltration system may be more than 2 metres below ground level, but this is not consistent with the British Standard which states 1 metre below ground level
• the depth of the infiltration system makes sense and working backwards from Building Regs Part H design of a drainage field, the base of the drainage field pipe would be 1.7 metres below ground level allowing a minimum of 300 millimetres of 20 millimetre or 40 millimetre stone under the drainage field pipework

Response

The permit requires that all works and equipment used for the treatment of sewage effluent and its discharge must comply with the relevant design and manufacturing standards, meaning the British Standard in force at the time of installation. We will therefore consider whether this condition is necessary. The current British Standard BS6297:2007+A1:2008 suggests (Figure 4) that the total depth of the drainage field should be less than or equal to 1 metre below ground level.

Comment

The permit requires that the discharge is not within 50 metres of another discharge, but it is not possible to identify the location of exempt discharges because there is no record of them.

Response

The condition requiring that a discharge is not located with 50 metres of any other exempt or permitted sewage effluent discharge to ground or surface water is consistent with the general binding rules. The likelihood of other discharges in the area is high if there is no public foul sewer provision and the 50 metres distance is sufficiently small to allow clarification to be obtained by asking neighbouring properties whether they have a private discharge.

Comment

The permit requires that the system be serviced by a competent and suitably qualified person, but this is not defined and there is no accreditation scheme for engineers.

Response

The issue of defining a ‘competent and suitably qualified person’ has been raised by several respondents. This requirement is consistent across all forms of small sewage discharge regulation and the question of what constitutes ‘competent and suitably qualified’ is therefore not specific to these proposed permits. We have provided guidance on competency within the introduction section of the proposed permits and will consider the comments received on the definition of ‘competent person’.

Comment

Regarding the 5 milligrams per litre ammonia limit, we support the requirement for a low concentration of ammonia being discharged into sensitive groundwater. Our concern comes from the deliverability of this concentration of ammonia from small domestic scale sewage treatment systems. Our experience is that there can be variability when comparing real world final effluent with a sewage system’s PIA statement. Ensuring 5 milligrams per litre ammonia can be achieved for 95% of the time is critical to delivering the goal of protecting groundwater.

Response

We have reviewed the effluent quality limit for ammoniacal nitrogen on the proposed standard rules permit SR2025 No 5 and intend to amend it from 5 to 10 milligrams per litre. This will strike the right balance between protecting groundwater from pollution and technical achievability.

Comments

Summary of comments:

• Sampling each year should be a strict requirement and the permit conditions should state that random sample reports will need to be submitted to avoid operators not having annual services.
• Regarding the proposed annual sampling for ammonia, we agree there is a need for sampling of a system to check performance. We require further clarification on the definition of a qualified competent person who will undertake the sampling. Further to this we would be concerned by owners using test strips to check performance. The test strips are relatively qualitative, colour based and open to interpretation. Samples, as a minimum, should be obtained from a handheld photometer and ideally results should be obtained from a lab analysed sample. A requirement should also be made to ensure sampling is undertaken during the busiest period of the premises operation i.e. when the system is fully loaded.
• Testing the effluent during a service interval is almost impossible because sewage treatment plants need to be emptied for a service to be carried out. You can split the visits so that two visits are carried out but you would be adding an extra financial cost onto the customer who, especially within this current climate, finds it difficult to pay for the normal service charge. You will be leaving this monitoring open to abuse because people who cannot afford an extra visit will end up forging recorded results or not use the standard rules permit in the first case and apply for a Bespoke Permit where there are no extra ongoing charges for the end users.

Response

The consultation generated a variety of comments on the proposed condition requiring annual effluent quality monitoring. Some respondents were in favour, while some raised concerns about the cost burden to operators, potential non-compliance and the accuracy of any results.

We intend to remove this condition from all the proposed standard rules permits. This is because the condition would not be in keeping with bespoke permits for small sewage discharges, which do not include this requirement even though the activities are generally of a higher environmental risk. The requirement would also place an additional cost burden on operators, many of whom will be homeowners. However, the standard rules permits will retain other conditions to ensure that the system is operated correctly and that the environment is protected. These include conditions requiring a written management system and annual servicing, as well as the requirement for secondary treatment of the effluent and, in some cases, numeric effluent quality limits.

Comment

The permit requires that no part of the infiltration system shall be less than 1.2 metres above the highest predicted annual groundwater level but obtaining this information is not possible.

Response

The condition requiring that no part of the system is less than 1.2 metres above the highest predicted annual groundwater level is consistent with the requirements of British Standard 6297:2007+A1:2008. Therefore, the requirement to obtain this information would also be present for a discharge operating under the general binding rules or a bespoke permit and it is not specific to these proposed standard rules permits.

Comment

Obtaining a representative sample to check system performance is extremely difficult without a separate final effluent chamber. We would like to see that a final effluent chamber is specified as part of the permit which will enable a representative drop sample to be taken. Just specifying a ‘monitoring point’ may not result in the correct provision.

Response

We will consider whether the requirement to provide a sampling chamber should be added to the proposed permits.

Comment

It is essential that pollution-sensitive features such as water abstraction resources and nature conservation sites as far as possible remain protected from any increase in permitted threshold volumes.

Response

The protection of pollution sensitive features has been considered within the generic risk assessment for the activity and, where necessary, appropriate conditions have been included within the proposed permit.

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

Summary of responses:

• yes – 3
• no – 3
• do not know – 2
• no opinion – 2

Some of the comments received cover the same issues as those raised under previous questions. Where this is the case, the comments have not been repeated in this section.

Comment

It should be clearly explained that secondary treatment means the use of a sewage treatment plant. Applicants and contractors do not know what the term secondary treatment is.

Response

We will consider whether the definition of ‘secondary treatment’ within the interpretation section of the proposed permit should be amended so that it refers to sewage treatment plants.

Comment

When nutrient neutrality mitigation is required.

Response

We believe the screening distances in combination with the other permit conditions ensure that proposed standard rules permits comply with the requirements of the habitats regulations. Therefore, if a proposed discharge is within the screening distances for habitats regulations sites, then the standard rules permit cannot be used.

Comment

It’s not clear from the document if existing discharges are able to apply for this standard rules permit. If it is relevant to existing systems, then can the permit be used in cases where the equipment is not to British Standard (or is unknown or cannot be demonstrated) but still produces an acceptable effluent quality? Also, the testing regime set by these rules, unless it is made clear that a bespoke permit could set a similar monitoring regime and quality of effluent expectation.

Response

Operators may use this standard rules permit for new or existing discharges, but only if they meet all the permit conditions. If the discharge does not meet the conditions, then the standard rules permit cannot be used regardless of effluent quality.

Comment

The permit requires that at the time the discharge is first made, it must not be made to a discharge point within 50 metres of any other exempt or permitted sewage effluent discharge to ground or surface water. Does this mean at the time of the discharge entering the new drainage field or when the original discharge started? For example, if a new sewage treatment plant and drainage field is replacing an existing septic tank and drainage field and keeping within 10m of the original discharge point, would we refer to the original discharge date or the date of when the new installation went live? If the latter, then this would be extremely hard to control and would add a lot more time/labour into finding this information out which would add extra financial costs to the customer. It would also rule out a lot of cases and force us to go down a full Bespoke Permit route. 

Response

For existing discharges, the term ‘at the time the discharge is first made’ refers to the date that the original discharge commenced.

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

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 0
• agree – 6
• neither agree nor disagree – 2
• disagree – 0
• strongly disagree – 2

Some of the comments received cover the same issues as those raised under previous questions. Where this is the case, the comments have not been repeated in this section.

Comment

Given that any generic risk assessment will be based on those risks identified as most commonly associated with a particular kind of activity, there may potentially be risks at a particular location that have not been identified (for example, discharges by other operators in the vicinity), the onus being upon individual operators to decide whether a standard rules permit is appropriate in their particular circumstances.

Response

The generic risk assessments and the associated conditions within the permits have, as far as possible, accounted for both risks from the specific activity and risks which might be related to the location.

Q5. Do you agree that the measures under these standard rules to manage, mitigate or reduce the environmental risks are appropriate?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 0
• agree – 1
• neither agree nor disagree – 1
• disagree – 3
• strongly disagree – 5

Some of the comments received cover the same issues as those raised under previous questions. Where this is the case, the comments have not been repeated in this section.

Comment

The prescribed distances from Priority Habitats or Designated Areas do not take topography into account.

Response

Screening distances offer a simple way of quickly determining the likelihood of there being a source-pathway-receptor linkage between a proposed discharge location and a specific receptor, such as an abstraction or a nature conservation site. However, it is acknowledged that they do not account for variables such as topography or hydrogeological conditions because such an assessment would require a site-specific conceptualisation and risk assessment.

Comment

The surge in requirement to meet NE requirements has demonstrated there is no one checking quality of effluent, we know from extensive research in Scandinavia the claims made by many are simply not achievable.

Response

It is the operator’s responsibility to ensure that their discharge does not cause pollution. The Environment Agency will undertake compliance assessment that is proportionate to the environmental risk from an activity.

Comment

Whilst it is welcome that the measures should include requirements for the secondary treatment of effluent and annually tested discharge quality limits for Principal and Secondary ‘A’ aquifers, these should arguably extend not only to all groundwater resources where a pollution risk is identified but to nature conservation sites that may potentially be affected.

Response

Risks to groundwater have been mitigated using conditions in the proposed permit, in particular the numeric effluent quality limits for discharges on principal and secondary A aquifers, and the requirement for all other discharges to receive secondary treatment. These conditions, along with the screening distances within which the permit may not be used, will also mitigate risks to nature conservation sites, including those that are groundwater dependent.

Questions 6 to 10 relate to discharges of domestic sewage with a maximum daily volume of 1.5 cubic metres per day to ground via a shallow infiltration system that is not built to British Standard BS6297:2007+A1:2008 (SR2025 No 6).

Q6. Do you agree with our proposal to use standard rules permits for discharges using shallow drainage systems which do not conform to the British Standard?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 1
• agree – 1
• neither agree nor disagree – 2
• disagree – 0
• strongly disagree – 6

Some of the comments received cover the same issues as those raised under previous questions. Where this is the case, the comments have not been repeated in this section.

Comment

In principle we agree with this proposal. The legacy of legislation outlawing discharges from septic tank to surface water has resulted in some sites having to install complex solutions to become compliant. The option to install a shallow drainage field serving small volume sites seems proportionate and low risk to the environment. Smaller systems will have a lower impact on the water environment overall. Therefore, ensuring a simpler application and management process is proportionate to the risk.

Response

A response to this comment is not required.

Comment

All discharges to ground should comply with British Standard BS6297:2007. Methods that do not comply result in spot pollution and zero aerobic treatment of the effluent.

Response

It is our experience that not all operators are able to comply with the British Standard, commonly due to space constraints. Use of the proposed permit is restricted to existing discharges that are being replaced. This means that an operator who wanted to install a new discharge with a drainage arrangement that does not conform to the British Standard would need to apply for a bespoke permit and provide justification. The permit conditions therefore ensure that non-British Standard drainage arrangements do not become the first choice or ‘new normal’.

The proposed permit contains a range of conditions to mitigate risks of pollution. Firstly, the permit requires that the drainage arrangement is shallow in depth and that no part of the infiltration system is less than 1.2 metres above the highest predicted annual groundwater level. This is to protect groundwater by ensuring there is as much attenuation of the effluent as possible before it enters groundwater. Secondly, the permit requires that all effluent is secondary treated using British Standard equipment and that discharges on principal or secondary A aquifers also adhere to a numeric effluent quality limit. Thirdly, the permit restricts the volume of the discharge to 1.5 cubic metres per day.

Comment

Can septic tank ‘conversion units’ be used if they are not British Standard certified?

Response

The permit requires that all works and equipment used for the treatment of sewage effluent (the treatment plant) must comply with the relevant design and manufacturing standards, meaning the British Standard that was in force at the time of the installation, and guidance issued by the appropriate authority on the capacity and installation of the equipment. Therefore, the proposed permit cannot be used with that type of equipment.

Comment

The ammoniacal nitrogen limit of 5 milligrams per litre is a very low level to achieve with even a new sewage treatment plant that has been tested to and obtain the EN1255-6 Certification. For example, the TriCel Novo plant rarely hits 5 milligrams per litre and the Marsh Ensign achieves 8.4 milligrams per litre. One important aspect to have in your mind is that with the restricted depths of the drainage arrangement that are required by the permit, almost certainly all systems will need to pump up to the new infiltration tunnel system but the EN12566 only tests gravity outlet systems and not pumped. 

Response

We have reviewed the effluent quality limit for ammoniacal nitrogen on the proposed standard rules permit SR2025 No 6 and intend to amend it from 5 to 10 milligrams per litre. This will strike the right balance between protecting groundwater from pollution and technical achievability.

Comment

The wording in this consultation is not the same as the proposed SR2025 No 6. The wording in the consultation uses the word “shallow”, but the SR2025 No 6 does not refer to “shallow”. This does not make sense.

Response

We appreciate that the consultation question uses the word ‘shallow’, but that the title of the draft permit does not include the word ‘shallow’ and apologise for any confusion. The conditions of the proposed permit specifically require that the drainage arrangements are shallow.

Comment

You have not specified what a shallow drainage system is. All the parameters listed meet British Standards. And there needs to be stronger guidance on when they can be used, for example Vp values.

Response

The proposed permit has not prescribed how a shallow drainage system should be constructed and therefore allows designs to be determined on a site-specific basis. However, it does impose constraints on design by restricting the depth and requiring that no part of the infiltration system is less than 1.2 metres above the highest predicted annual groundwater level. The proposed maximum depth of 1 metre below ground level will be reconsidered based upon other comments received through this consultation.

The proposed permit includes conditions which specify when the permit cannot be used, for example within specific distances of potable abstractions or certain nature conservation sites. It also states that the Vp of the underlying soils must be between 15 and 100 seconds per millimetre and that the Vp must be established in accordance with the methodology specified in British Standard BS6297:2007+A1:2008.

Comment

Whether standard rules permits should be used in these circumstances should depend upon whether it could be deemed reasonable for operators not to have British Standard compliant systems in place in whole or part.

Response

It is possible that some operators may choose to use this standard rules permit and install a drainage arrangement that does not conform to the British Standard, even though they could install a British Standard compliant drainage field. However, the requirement that the discharge must be existing and that the volume is no more than 1.5 cubic metres per day should limit the number of cases in which this happens.

Q7. Do you agree with the rules and constraints in the proposed standard rules for discharges using shallow drainage systems which do not conform to the British Standard?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 2
• agree – 0
• neither agree nor disagree – 1
• disagree – 1
• strongly disagree – 6

Some of the comments received cover the same issues as those raised under previous questions. Where this is the case, the comments have not been repeated in this section.

Comment

Post permit annual servicing is a must and you should say that random requests will be made for service tests, as this will ensure annual tests are maintained. As a contractor who has installed hundreds of off mains systems, trust me when I say that most do not have them checked every year and that quality of ‘servicing’ that installers are offering is very poor and consists of visual checks only. We do actually test the samples unlike most others.

Response

The proposed permit includes conditions requiring that the system is managed and operated in accordance with a written management system and that the works and equipment are serviced a minimum of once every 12 months.

We intend to remove the condition requiring an annual effluent quality test from all the proposed standard rules permits. This is because the condition would not be in keeping with bespoke permits for small sewage discharges, which do not include this requirement even though the activities are generally of a higher environmental risk. The requirement would also place an additional cost burden on operators, many of whom will be homeowners.

Comment

Many rural properties in Herefordshire and Shropshire have private water supplies. It would be almost impossible to locate a drainage field more than 250m away from a private water supply.

Response

We have reconsidered this condition and intend to reduce the screening distance to 125 metres. This is greater than the 50 metres used for discharges to ground within the general binding rules due to the non-British Standard drainage arrangement allowed by the proposed standard rules permits SR2025 No 6.

Comment

It is extremely costly to install sewers under Highways or through 3rd party land. As such, laying a new sewer connection for up to 200m is impractical. Noting the topography of rural areas, it would also mean that pumping systems would be necessary.

Response

We have reconsidered this condition and intend to link the screening distance for public foul sewer to the number of properties that the discharge is serving. This follows the same methodology used in the general binding rules for small sewage discharges. For a single domestic property, the screening distance will be 30 metres.

Comment

The concept is wrong and will result in pollution and failed systems because there is no accepted design criteria with which to size this type of structure. Only British Standards should be used. The construction industry cannot be trusted to accurately design such a system without a defined calculation. This does not exist. People and the environment will suffer.

Response

We accept that there are no design criteria for sizing a non-British Standard drainage arrangement. However, these systems are still commonly used, and the Environment Agency regularly receives applications for bespoke sewage discharge permits from operators who are unable to comply with the British Standard drainage field design. We therefore believe that there is a genuine need for some operators to create drainage arrangements that do not follow the British Standard design. The proposed standard rules permit includes conditions to mitigate risks to the environment that might be created by using a drainage arrangement that does not conform to British Standards, but it is the responsibility of the installer and operator to ensure that the system is designed correctly and provides adequate drainage.

Comment

It is essential that pollution-sensitive features such as water abstraction resources and nature conservation sites are as far as possible protected by attenuating the impact of effluent discharges that use shallow drainage systems.

Response

Pollution-sensitive features are protected by a range of conditions within the permit, including restrictions on the use of these systems within certain distances of pollution sensitive features and the requirement for high standards of effluent quality.

Comment

You physically and practically need a greater depth than 1m to construct an infiltration tunnel system. For example, the height of a Graf Infiltration Tunnel is 510 millimetres, we need a minimum of 300 millimetres cover of topsoil above any drainage system to allow for the grass to grow and not puddle during winter periods or dry out during the summer months. This gives us a minimum depth of 810 millimetres before looking at the depth of stone underneath the Infiltration Tunnel which as per Building Regulations we require to have a minimum of 300 millimetres depth of stone under a soakaway system. This immediately contravenes this rule and would force users to apply for a full Bespoke Permit. If the Graf Infiltration Tunnel System is used within a driveway, we require a minimum of 750 millimetres cover above the tunnels which would make the depth a minimum of 1.56 metres below ground level. This depth really needs to be increased to 1.6 metres (1.56 metres rounded up) to allow an installation that complies with Building Regulations Part H (as best as can do with the required depth of stone) and the manufacturers design specifications. I must stress that you cannot install an infiltration system that complies with Building Regulations Part H or the British standard at a depth of 1 metre below ground level and failing to increase the depth would lead to this area being abused and incorrect installations which would cause more of a potential pollution problem. 

Response

We will consider this point and whether the draft standard rules permit should be amended. However, it would not be good practice to install a sewage effluent drainage system beneath a driveway for a number of reasons, including potential compaction, reduced aeration and maintenance problems. 

Q8. Would any of the requirements prevent prospective operators from using the proposed standard rules?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 2
• no – 2
• do not know – 2
• no opinion – 4

All the comments related to issues have received a response under previous questions.

Q9. Do you agree that the risks associated with the activity are identified by the generic risk assessment?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 0
• agree – 4
• neither agree nor disagree – 3
• disagree – 0
• strongly disagree – 3

Some of the comments received cover the same issues as those raised under previous questions. Where this is the case, the comments have not been repeated in this section.

Comment

The biggest risk is that the system will not provide adequate, sustainable effluent disposal. This is not assessed and there is no data available with which to make an assessment.

Response

With respect to protection of the water environment, the adequacy of the system should be secured through the conditions requiring secondary treatment for all discharges and adherence to numeric effluent quality limits for discharges on principal or secondary A aquifers. Ensuring that a system is adequately constructed to drain the effluent for the desired time period is a matter for the installer and the operator.

Q10. Do you agree that the measures under these standard rules to manage, mitigate or reduce the environmental risks are appropriate?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 0
• agree – 1
• neither agree nor disagree – 1
• disagree – 1
• strongly disagree – 7

Comment

In the case of underlying impermeable soils, this issue has not been considered fully.

Response

The permit contains a condition requiring that the Vp of underlying soils is between 15 and 100 seconds per millimetre. Therefore, if underlying soils are impermeable the proposed permit cannot be used. Operators and their installers would need to consider other options, such as discharge to surface water, use of a cess pit or connection to public foul sewer.

Comment

There is no national registration, mandatory servicing or testing and therefore how does anyone know what is really happening? It is also easy to get a test certificate for a packaged treatment plant, but who tests the manufacturers are even making to what was tested?

Response

There is not a national registration scheme for exempt sewage discharges, but the Environment Agency has records of all discharges which have an environmental permit. Exempt discharges operating under the general binding rules are required to be installed and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification, which would normally include at least one service per year. Environmental permits for sewage discharges normally contain a condition requiring regular servicing of the system and the proposed standard rules permit also contains a condition requiring this.

Issues relating to the adequacy of sewage treatment plant construction by manufacturers are outside the scope of the consultation.

Questions 11 to 15 relate to discharges to surface water which use equipment that does not conform to the British Standard or where the receiving watercourse does not always have flow, or both (SR2025 No 7).

Q11. Do you agree with our proposal to use standard rules permits for discharges to surface water which use equipment that does not conform to the British Standard or where the receiving watercourse does not always have flow, or both?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 1
• agree – 2
• neither agree nor disagree – 1
• disagree – 2
• strongly disagree – 4

Comments

Summary of comments:

• this is fine and concurrent with general binding rules
• in principle we agree with this approach because it will allow for a more proportionate regulatory system and lower administrative burden. This agreement is dependent, however, on some additional protections to be added within the system which will lower risk to the environment

Response

No response is required to these comments. The additional protections recommended by the respondent are covered within the comments below.

Comments

Summary of comments:

• equipment that has a British Standard or construction that is designed to meet the British Standard (drainage field) has been done so for a reason, i.e. it has been tested to ensure it works and the desired level of treatment is achieved. How will the EA ensure that installed plant that doesn’t conform to the British Standard does meet guidelines when the EA don’t visit any small discharges and leave it to Building Control to police the install but they know next to nothing about off mains systems! And there is no accreditation scheme for the off mains industry so homeowners can trust the person installing a system knows what they are doing
• how can we endorse equipment that doesn’t conform to a British Standard or European Norm?

Response

It is no longer permissible to discharge sewage effluent form a septic tank directly into a watercourse under the general binding rules. The Environment Agency regularly receives bespoke applications from operators who wish to upgrade their sewage treatment systems with retrofitted equipment for which there is currently no British Standard accreditation process. Operators may choose this equipment for several reasons, including space or cost constraints. The Environment Agency typically grants these permits with conditions. The proposed standard rules permit includes effluent quality limits which require that the equipment produces a good standard of secondary treatment. We will consider whether the management condition within the permit should be amended to provide additional assurances on system performance. Responsibility for ensuring that the equipment is effective in delivering the numeric effluent quality limits rests with the operator, installer and manufacturer.

The equipment is not being endorsed, but operators of existing systems are being given flexibility in how they achieve secondary treatment. It should also be noted that the proposed permit limits the use of non-British Standard equipment to existing discharges only.

Comment

Although there may be circumstances where it may be deemed reasonable for operators not to have British Standard compliant treatment systems in place, it should be considered inappropriate to use standard rules permits for discharges of 5 cubic metres per day to receiving watercourses that do not always have flow, as the occasions when they do not may not always be recognised in time with the consequent risk of inadvertent discharges of effluent (that even if semi-treated may still be toxic to aquatic life as a result of not being sufficiently diluted).

Response

Some operators are unable to discharge to ground, for example because of very low permeability soils on their site. Instead, they often apply for a bespoke permit to discharge into a nearby watercourse that does not have a constant flow of water. The proposed permit contains conditions to try and mitigate any risks to a watercourse under low-flow or dry conditions. For example, it requires that the discharge is made to ground when the watercourse is dry, it contains effluent quality limits and it prohibits discharges into chalk streams. 

Q12. Do you agree with the rules and constraints in the proposed standard rules for discharges to surface water which use equipment that does not conform to the British Standard or where the receiving watercourse does not always have flow, or both?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 2
• agree – 1
• neither agree nor disagree – 1
• disagree – 3
• strongly disagree – 3

Some of the comments received cover the same issues as those raised under previous questions. Where this is the case, the comments have not been repeated in this section.

Comment

Many watercourses and seasonal watercourses are the line of private boundaries between properties. As such, the requirement to locate the discharge point more than 2 metres from a private boundary is impracticable.

Response

We will consider this as part of the consultation.

Comment

Treatment systems that do not conform to British Standards should still demonstrate they can meet the basic secondary treatment standard of 20:30:20 for Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Suspended Solids, Ammonia. This evidence should be a compulsory part of the permit application process and be based on real world conditions. For example, vertical flow reedbeds do not conform to British Standards but the industry can provide a body of evidence to prove they deliver excellent treatment performance.

Response

We will consider the condition and the wider issue as part of the consultation. 

Comment

We have more concern over the environmental protections for discharges to a periodically dry ditch. We would suggest this option is only chosen as a last resort. Smaller headwater streams are important nature friendly habitats. Care is required to minimise the impact from pollution because even small volume discharges could have a measurable impact. Further development of options for this discharge type need to take place so there is adequate protection for the environment.

Response

In our experience, some operators are unable to discharge to ground or to a watercourse with constant flow. Consequently, they often apply for a bespoke permit to discharge into a nearby watercourse that does not have a constant flow of water, as the alternative would be a sealed cess pit. The Environment Agency commonly issues bespoke permits for these discharges and includes conditions to mitigate any risks to a watercourse under low or no-flow conditions. The proposed standard rules permit contains similar conditions, for example it requires that the discharge goes to ground before it reaches the watercourse if no flow is present. It also contains effluent quality limits and prohibits discharges into chalk streams.

Comment

Owners are required to “ensure the extent and arrangement of the perforated pipe shall be sufficient to ensure that the discharge is only made when the receiving watercourse is flowing immediately upstream of the discharge point”. To achieve this we would like to see further guidance to help owners develop a solution that meets this requirement.

Response

This requirement is consistent with the requirements of a bespoke permit for this activity. The infiltration system would need to be designed based upon the site-specific conditions which are likely to vary significantly. We will consider this further as part of the consultation.

Comment

It is essential that pollution-sensitive features such as water abstraction resources and nature conservation sites (also downland chalk streams) are as far as possible protected by attenuating the impacts of effluent discharges that use non-British Standard equipment or which discharge to watercourses with intermittent flow, or both.

Response

Pollution sensitive features, including water abstractions, nature conservation sites and chalk streams are protected by screening distances within the proposed permit. The permit also contains numeric effluent quality conditions to ensure that adequate secondary treatment is achieved by any non-British Standard equipment.

Comment

The discharge must not be made to a lake or pond. Does this refer to a lake or pond that has no overflow or a lake or pond that does have an overflow, or both?

Response

Lake or pond means any relevant lake or pond as defined by section 104(3) Water Resources Act 1991 which refers to lakes or ponds that discharge to watercourses.

Comment

Does the requirement to be outside of the screening distances for potable abstractions apply to an existing illegal discharge from a septic tank that is within these curtilages?

Response

Yes, the requirement does apply. The standard rules permit may only be used if all the conditions are met. It is our intention to reduce the screening distance for potable abstractions from 200 metres to 125 metres.

Comment

Regarding the requirement that no boundary of the premises shall be within 200 metres of an existing public foul sewer at the time the discharge is first made, can you clarify that this relates to the original discharge date.

Response

For existing discharges, the term ‘at the time the discharge is first made’ refers to the date that the original discharge commenced. It is our intention to link the screening distance for public foul sewer to the number of properties that the discharge is serving. This follows the same methodology used in the general binding rules for small sewage discharges. For a single domestic property, the screening distance will be 30 metres.

Q13. Would any of the requirements prevent prospective operators from using the proposed standard rules?

Summary of responses:

• yes – 0
• no – 4
• do not know – 2
• no opinion – 2
• not answered – 2

Some of the comments received cover the same issues as those raised under previous questions. Where this is the case, the comments have not been repeated in this section.

Comment

The proposed permit requires that discharges must have their effluent tested every 12 months to confirm that the sewage treatment system is working correctly and that the effluent complies with any numeric effluent quality limit for Ammoniacal nitrogen. Why not test for all parameters – Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids and Ammonia via a United Kingdom Accreditation Service accredited lab by an accredited service engineer?

Response

It is our intention to remove the condition requiring annual effluent quality testing. The reasons for this were covered earlier in this consultation response document.

Comment

Most discharges to a watercourse are on a substrate that does not have a good percolation value, and this is why the discharge is going to a watercourse. The chances of obtaining a Vp value of between 15 and100 seconds per millimetre within 10 metres of the watercourse is almost impossible. I understand a section of seasonal soakaway prior to entering the watercourse but a Vp of between 15 and 100 seconds per millimetre will leave this area open to abuse or being fraudulent. 

Response

We will consider this issue as part of the consultation.

Q14. Do you agree that the risks associated with the activity are identified by the generic risk assessment?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 1
• agree – 3
• neither agree nor disagree – 3
• disagree – 1
• strongly disagree – 2

The comments related to issues have received a response under previous questions.

Q15. Do you agree that the measures under these standard rules to manage, mitigate or reduce the environmental risks are appropriate?

Summary of responses:

• strongly agree – 0
• agree – 3
• neither agree nor disagree – 1
• disagree – 2
• strongly disagree – 4

Comment

This is fine and concurrent with GBRs.

Response

No response is required to this comment.

Comment

It is welcome that the measures should without qualification include such additional requirements as the secondary treatment of effluent and annually-tested discharge quality limits, though experience suggests that the requirement that discharge is only made to a watercourse when flow is present may in practise be difficult to enforce on all occasions when it is not.

Response

We accept that it may be difficult to enforce the condition which requires that discharge is only made to a watercourse when flow is present. However, this requirement is consistent with bespoke permits for the same activity and the responsibility for compliance with permit conditions rests with the operator, as does the overarching requirement that the discharge does not cause pollution. Because some operators cannot discharge to ground or to a watercourse with constant flow, the Environment Agency regularly issues bespoke permits for this type of activity. Therefore, the proposed permit does not allow a ‘new’ type of activity but instead allows it to be performed under a standard set of rules.

Questions 16 and 17 relate to possible business impacts and other comments or observations.

Q16. 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:

• yes – 6
• no – 0
• do not know – 1
• no opinion – 2
• not answered – 1

Comment

We manufacture both septic tanks and sewage treatment plants. The new rules will increase sewage treatment plant sales and decrease septic tank sales. This will be a positive economic and environment impact.

Response

No response is required to this comment.

Comment

There is currently no available method of correctly identifying private water abstraction points. Therefore, it is unlikely that all third party abstraction points could be identified in a 250 metre radius. This may be multiple dwellings. This may mean that businesses become liable for not identifying abstraction points.

The overall impact of the requirements for a discharge to be 200 metres away from a Public Sewer and 250 metres away from an abstraction point will impact small development companies.

Response

It is our intention to change the screening distances for both potable abstractions and public foul sewers, as detailed earlier in the consultation response. With respect to identifying the presence of private water supplies, local authorities will keep records as part of their duties under The Private Water Supplies (England) Regulations 2016 and a request could be made for information on the presence of supplies within a specified radius of the proposed discharge.

Comment

All our products are tested or designed in accordance to relevant standards and where a standard does not exist, we work to best practice. All this is done under ISO37301. We believe allowing non British Standard or European Norm equipment will open the market to anyone and with very little control and therefore impacting the environment due to product not working.

Response

The use of non-British Standard equipment or drainage field design is restricted to existing discharges, meaning that their use should be by exception and not become widespread. We will further consider this issue as part of the consultation.

Comment

The implication for the business is that any affected site or permit would incur costs to vary or apply for a permit. Any associated investment required to upgrade the site to meet compliance standards under Environmental Permitting Regulations and increased cost and resource pressure for monitoring requirements for new permits. It is a challenge to put a monetary impact value against these changes without further clarification of the general binding rules and these proposals. We would welcome further details. In addition, this change would create resource pressures and increase workloads for both internal teams and the Environment Agency, drawing on the same already overstretched resources that are managing Asset Management Period 8 delivery.

Response

The proposed permits provide an additional regulatory option. There is no change to the requirements concerning when an environmental permit is required and no requirement to upgrade a site or vary an existing permit. We do not anticipate additional resource pressures within the Environment Agency with these standard rules permits, especially as they can be processed and issued more quickly than bespoke permits.

Q17. Please provide any further comments or observations that you would like us to consider as part of this consultation 

Comment

In terms of additional points, we would like to see the Environment Agency bring in a new rule that all Small Sewage Discharges have a licence (as Natural Resources Wales and the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency do) so we can have a national register of installations, this would take us all on a path to greater control of what is supplied, installed and maintained across England and Wales, therefore ensuring improved water quality.

Response

These proposals would require amendment of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 and this is not within the scope of the consultation. 

Comment

We would like to see all Small Sewage Discharges including existing installations have the same rules as the new standard rules permits. Servicing and in-situ testing should be made mandatory and again this should be done by a clear a competent person, but competent person needs to be clearly defined. These plants should also have an annual test to ensure compliance; this should be a minimum 20:30:20 as per EN12566-3. Old systems failing to meet this consent would need to be replaced.

Response

Both the general binding rules and environmental permits require that sewage treatment systems are installed and operated in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification and this normally includes an annual service. We do not intend to retrospectively add a condition requiring annual in-situ testing to existing permits.

Comment

We believe it’s time to stop the use of septic tanks with regards new installations as a minimum, we would like the Environment Agency to make a stance on this. We are all keen to improve water quality, surely this would go a long way towards this. Longer term it would then be good to see a replacement programme.

Response

The general binding rules allow the use of septic tanks for discharges to ground; therefore, the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 would need to be amended to make the proposed change. This is outside the scope of the consultation.

Comment

With regard to the proposals relating to discharges to receiving watercourses that do not always have flow, it is to be asked firstly whether the discharge must be existing (as required for the use of non-British Standard equipment to provide secondary treatment), and secondly whether any special assessment has been made of the likely impacts of such permitted discharges on watercourses such as the downland chalk streams of southern England that may suffer loss of flow in drought conditions.

Response

Discharges to watercourses that do not always have flow are not required to be existing discharges. This is because operators sometimes do not have much choice about where the discharge is made. The proposed permit may not be used for a discharge that is within 50 metres of a chalk stream. 

Comment

Would the 6 years record keeping be required by the homeowner or us as a company carrying out the visits?

Response

The responsibility for keeping records rests with the permit holder.

Comment

Regarding the requirement to send all reports and notifications to the Environment Agency, does this refer to the testing of the final effluent alone or the service record sheet from the servicing of the sewage treatment plant, or both?

Response

This refers to the notifications outlined in section 4.3. There would be no requirement to send servicing reports to the Environment Agency and it is our intention to remove the requirement for annual effluent quality testing.

Comment

I strongly recommend and cannot stress enough that section 4.3.1 should be reworded because you can have a case where a submersible pump within a sewage treatment plant has failed and not discharging any effluent into the drainage field but filling the sewage treatment plant up and backing up towards the property – the system has malfunctioned, broken down, a piece of the equipment has failed and needs replacing but it is not affecting the drainage field. You can even have a smaller scenario where an air compressor needs replacing. The Environment Agency will end up having thousands and thousands of reports being sent through just to keep them up to date with any changes. It would almost be better to just have copies of all servicing sent through to the Environment Agency but again there will be a huge amount of service records being sent over which if the Environment Agency is not prepared for can quickly overwhelm your systems. 

Response

The condition is consistent with that used on bespoke permits and only requires the Environment Agency to be notified if the issue has caused, is causing or may cause significant pollution.

Comment

We support the proposals in this consultation, pro-tem with the caveat that a more holistic approach to water permitting is needed. Starting, in effect, with an integrated regulatory position statement.

Response

We welcome this feedback, but wider reform of water permitting is outside the scope of the consultation. 

Next steps

The responses we received have provided information that supports us in developing the standard rules sets for these activities. We will now review the draft permits and generic risk assessments to produce final versions. We plan to publish them on GOV.UK in Spring 2026.

If you want to discuss your consultation response or the points made within this document, please email enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk with ‘Standard Rules Consultation 32’ in the subject.

List of respondents

Respondents by organisation name

Below Ground Solutions Ltd

Environmental Health Officer

HH Drainage

Kingspan Water and Energy Ltd

Mantair Ltd

Members of the public (3)

National Trust

United Utilities

Water Technology Engineering Ltd

WCI Group Ltd

Worshipful Company of Water Conservators