Consultation outcome

Standard rules permit consultation no 29: summary of consultation responses

Updated 12 February 2026

1. Introduction

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

The purpose of this consultation was to engage with stakeholders to get their views on the proposal for a standard rules permit for the use of incinerator bottom ash aggregate (IBAA) in specified construction activities as a waste recovery operation. This would be an alternative to a bespoke permit.

2. How we ran the consultation

We formally consulted from 9 December 2024 until 3 March 2025, using our Citizen Space consultation website.

We asked 9 questions. Questions relating to the draft standard rules permit were set out in Q1 to Q7 of the consultation. Questions relating to the risk assessment were set out in Q8. Questions relating to the business impact were set out in Q9.

We received 8 responses to the consultation.

Of the 8 responses we received:

• 0 were from an individual
• 8 were on behalf of an organisation or group

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

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

The consultation responses included comments around the scope of the proposed rules and its restrictions.

We are now reviewing the draft standard rules permit with reference to the comments received and we will produce a final version for publication on GOV.UK. We hope to publish the standard rules permit in the first quarter of 2026.

4. Responses to questions 1 to 9 and our response

Questions 1 to 9 relate to the proposed new standard rules for the use of IBAA in specified construction activities as a waste recovery operation.

Q1. Do you agree that the proposed activity limits are appropriate? If no, please explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 1
• no – 7
• do not know – 0

Summary of comments received

Respondents proposed that the activity limits could be expanded to include the use of IBAA as:

• other forms of sub-base than road sub-base (for example ‘pavements, car parks, building slabs’)
• fill material
• capping material
• trench backfill other than pipe-bedding

It was also asked if the basis for the activities specified in the standard rules was risk related and, if further information on IBAA became available, whether the construction activities and limits could be revised.

Respondents stated that it was not currently clear that activity limits in the standard rules are for 100% IBAA or IBAA blended with a non-waste aggregate. They requested that ‘hydraulically bound IBAA’ be included in this heading. A comment also stated that the tonnage threshold between the new proposed standard rules and candidate waste exemption regulatory position statement (RPS) should be clearer.

A respondent suggested that applying for a standard rules permit to carry out these activities, rather than using the current RPS (RPS 247), creates an administrative burden on industry.

Our response

In response to the proposals to expand the activities included in the draft standard rules, we will make the following changes.

We will include use of IBAA as a sub-base in activities other than road construction and:

• add ‘pavement’ alongside references to ‘road’ sub-base
• add ‘other forms of sub-base’, with the example of ‘car parks’, to the current reference to ‘building platform’ (an alternative term for ‘building slab’) with the same accompanying restrictions on use

We will include use of IBAA in bedding for all buried services that are run in trenches and add ‘and bedding for other buried services’ to current references to ‘pipe-bedding’.

However, we will not include ‘fill material’ or ‘capping’ material within this standard rules as the original groundwater modelling did not include these types of use. Neither activity is considered specific enough to accommodate into a standard rules and would need a bespoke permit application with a site-specific risk assessment.

The basis for the activities specified in the draft standard rules is related to risk. They are transposed from RPS 247, which industry were consulted on at the time of publication and contributed to the evidence pack which support the position statement. The evidence pack included an independent report produced by the Water Research Council and extensive sampling and leachate testing of IBAA carried out by industry to support that report.

If further information on IBAA becomes available which supports a reduced level of risk, we will consider revising the list of construction activities and restrictions in the standard rules in the future. A considerable amount of data from sampling and analysis of IBAA over several years, and from many different plants, led to the activities and limits listed. A change to the level of risk that the use of IBAA poses is not anticipated unless there is a step change in IBA processing, for example, using a washing step.

We will review the wording in the draft standard rules relating to activity limits for IBAA (100% IBAA or IBAA blended with a non-waste aggregate). We will include reference to ‘hydraulically bound IBAA’ where IBAA is mixed with water and a binder such as cement.

We will also add wording in the introductory note relating to the tonnage threshold between the new proposed standard rules and candidate waste exemption RPS. It should be noted that an operator cannot hold a standard rules permit and use a waste exemption (or associated RPS) at the same site. If activities are likely to exceed the threshold for the exemption, then the operator must apply for a standard rules permit alone (or a bespoke permit). The upper threshold limit for using the candidate waste exemption RPS is 25,000 tonnes in a construction platform. We will publish the new RPS alongside publication of the new standard rules. At the same time, RPS 247 will be withdrawn.

Regarding the standard rules creating an administrative burden on industry, RPS 247 (as with all RPSs) was intended as a temporary measure subject to regular review. At some point, we must withdraw RPSs and fully implement the law as currently laid down and waste management permits or exemptions.

Internal review of RPS 247 and its application has concluded that the most appropriate regulatory options for the use of IBAA on land is a new exemption. Until there is a change in law, we can only set this out as a regulatory position statement, and a new standard rules permit to accompany the bespoke environmental permit option. 

We consider that the introduction of a waste exemption and standard rules option will in fact minimise the administrative burden on industry, compared to the bespoke permit route.

Q2. Are you satisfied that the guidance on how to prepare a waste recovery plan will help you to produce waste recovery plans for your operations? Please provide additional comments to support your answer if needed.

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 1
• no – 2
• do not know – 5

Summary of comments received

Respondents challenged the need for a waste recovery plan. Several raised concerns that the current guidance, or more specifically the approach to recovery assessment that it references, is not appropriate for the use of IBAA on land.  

A respondent stated that they consider the guidance unsatisfactory. It was suggested that a template with accompanying structured guidance for completing a waste recovery plan would avoid delay in the application process and therefore the movement of material for use in projects. A second respondent welcomed the suggestion that trade bodies produce a waste recovery plan template for operators to use, with engagement from the Environment Agency.

A comment claimed that the requirement for a waste recovery plan demonstrates a lack of understanding of the sector and the Environment Agency’s failure to engage with all producers of IBAA. It is commented that the requirement for a waste recovery plan presents a higher administrative burden than using the current RPS. Associated administrative and financial costs are highlighted, including the need to appoint specialists to prepare the plan. It is claimed by a respondent that the administrative requirements discourage the use of this material. 

Another respondent suggests that a waste recovery plan is not required as incinerator bottom ash (IBA) processors already take steps to ensure that valuable materials are recovered for reuse. IBAA producers do so with a commitment to reduce environmental impact and conserve natural resources, which supports the broader goal of environmental sustainability by promoting circular economy principles.

Comments stated that requirements for a waste recovery plan would limit the potential use of IBAA to customers that understand the product and that had planned to use this material during the planning stages of a project. It is stated that this is often not the case and may rule out some schemes, including larger schemes, that IBAA producers wish to tender for.

A respondent referred to the requirement to justify the tonnages proposed to be used and the risk that a contractor may choose to use non-waste aggregate to avoid the bureaucracy of process.

The comment suggested that when a contractor has a set of construction drawings for a project, this alone should be adequate justification of recovery in place of the need for a waste recovery plan.

A respondent stated that having a sampling and testing regime in place, and assurances that the suppliers would be required to share the lab analysis with end users, would support that the material is suitable to be used as part of construction activities.

Reference was also made to appropriate engineering standards (specifically BS EN 13242) and the question asked of whether IBAA meets the definition of ‘mineral origin’ (3.3 ‘manufactured aggregate’).

Our response

The responses to this question refer to:

• the need for waste recovery plan as part of this proposed standard rules permit application
• the information and evidence required to demonstrate recovery for these permits
• the available guidance on preparing a waste recovery plan

Requirement for a waste recovery plan

A ‘waste recovery plan’ is a document or set of documents that demonstrates that the scheme proposed to be carried out under the permit is a waste recovery rather than a waste disposal activity. The approved waste recovery plan then forms part of the permit that must be complied with.

As regulator, the Environment Agency must carefully assess whether an activity is recovery as part of a deposit for recovery permit application. This is to ensure that the correct permit has been applied for and that the waste hierarchy is not undermined by granting a recovery permit for a waste disposal activity.

A waste recovery plan must be included with a deposit for recovery permit application. It can be submitted for assessment separately at the pre-application stage so that advice can be provided as early as possible.

Demonstrating recovery

The responses make specific reference to the requirement to demonstrate the following as part of an argument of recovery:

• purpose of the work to be covered by the permit
• proposed waste is suitable to perform the function
• only the amount of waste needed for the scheme will be used
• appropriate standards will be met to ensure that the scheme is fit for purpose

The responses do not refer to the requirement to provide evidence to support that the waste, in serving a useful purpose, will be replacing other non-waste materials which would otherwise have been used to fulfil the function. We refer to this in our guidance as ‘substitution’ and it is an important part of recovery assessment. It is to support that the definition of recovery in Article 3 of the Waste Framework Directive has been met.

Our approach to assessing recovery applies to all deposits of all waste types. We appreciate that the requirements of a waste recovery plan may present challenges to the use of IBAA. However, it would not be appropriate to apply a different set of requirements to a particular industry and certain types of waste.

Available guidance on preparing a waste recovery plan

Our guidance on GOV.UK outlines what should be included in a waste recovery plan. However, it cannot refer to specific types of recovery activity individually or the use of particular types of waste to deliver these schemes. 

We are therefore working with industry on a waste recovery template, tailored to the activities permitted under SR2025 No 2. This would assist potential permit holders to more easily present the required information in their waste recovery plan and allow the assessment of the recovery argument to be carried out as efficiently as possible. We have also proposed to extend the method of evidencing that only the amount of waste needed for the scheme will be used to include alternatives to topographical levels surveys where appropriate (see Q6).

The waste recovery plan template will be owned and hosted by industry.

Q3. Do you agree with the proposed tonnage limits? Note: the amount of waste that you can deposit will be limited by the total amount stated in your approved waste recovery plan. If no, please explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 2
• no – 5
• do not know – 1

Summary of comments received

A respondent challenged the need for an absolute maximum tonnage due to the variation in construction site sizes. It has been suggested that a maximum tonnage or volume per unit area (for example, 1000 tonnes per hectare) be applied instead. The justification being that it would ensure proportionate control of the potential for leachate contributions to infiltration to groundwater bodies, and via groundwater to other receptors.

Another respondent asked if it would be possible to supply multiple supplies of up to 68,000 tonnes under the same permit for major schemes such as motorway junctions and large phased housing developments.

Respondents stated that the reasoning behind the maximum tonnage of 68,000 tonnes is not explained and therefore is not able to fully comment. If based on risk assessment, it has been asked if this assessment could be shared. Another respondent suggested that a minimum tonnage limit be applied to distinguish between the standard rules and use of the waste exemption or replacement RPS.

Respondents also said that it is not clear what is defined as a ‘non-waste’ material, suggesting that it should be stated that a recycled aggregate meeting ‘end of waste’ criteria is a non-waste material, as well as virgin aggregate.

Our response

The maximum tonnage limit of 68,000 tonnes for a construction platform in the standard rules has been informed by risk assessment and subsequent discussion with IBAA producers.

The stated maximum tonnage or volume in a standard rules set is one of the limits that must be met, alongside other criteria and restrictions. Any operations that would not meet one or more of the requirements of the appropriate standard rules and its generic risk assessment would need to be carried out under a bespoke permit. This is to enable a site-specific assessment of the activity to be carried out.

Specific limits on activity are needed to advise a prospective applicant which type of permit they should apply for. The same applies to the candidate exemption RPS for use of IBAA. Whether this is a suitable option rather than applying for a permit or not is determined by other factors than just the amount of waste to be used.

Some standard rules include an application rate limit rather than a maximum tonnage. However, these are limited to mobile plant permits and subsequent site-specific deployment assessments. By limiting the total tonnage of waste to be used, and the dimensions and conditions under which it can be deposited, this indirectly provides an application rate upon which risk can and has been assessed.

The tonnage limit in a standard rules is the maximum amount that we would agree can be used for the entire permitted operation, following assessment of the waste recovery plan. If more waste is required, such as for a major infrastructure project, the operator must apply for a bespoke permit or separate standard rules permits where the construction activities are discrete operations.   

The reference in the draft standard rules to ‘non-waste aggregate’ includes recycled aggregate meeting end of waste criteria, as well as virgin aggregate. We will add this clarification in the ‘interpretation’ section of the rules.

Q4. Do you agree with the proposed IBAA placement restrictions? If no, please explain your answer

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 2
• no – 5
• do not know – 1

Summary of comments received

A respondent agreed with the proposed IBAA placement restrictions but stated that there should be a facility to enable larger volumes to be used on larger sites.

Respondents also suggested that Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) designated for geological purposes, which have no association with ground or surface water and are therefore not at risk from IBAA, should not be included in the 500 metres placement restriction.

Respondents have stated that dust is not an issue and that the permit should be allowed in Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) for PM10. One respondent stated that because the IBAA would be used in place of non-waste aggregate, it would not increase the risk of PM10s.  

A respondent also suggested that the distance restriction to springs and water wells in the standard rules should be 50 metres, as it is in the current and proposed RPS. Another respondent suggested that Source Protection Zone (SPZ) designations do not consider the nature of the abstraction and suggested this be considered on a case-by-case basis.

A respondent stated that many water wells are now disused for water supply and have been decommissioned and asked if these can be disregarded. 

A respondent suggested that the location restrictions in the standard rules can prevent the use of the product close to its source, which should be encouraged. Another respondent challenged that the available evidence on risk should enable us to reduce the restrictions on location in the standard rules.

A respondent stated that suppliers of virgin aggregates that mix their material with construction and demolition waste are not restricted on placement and are not treated in the same ways as producers and users of IBAA.

Our response

Standard rules set out the criteria and restrictions under which an operation must comply with in full to use this type of ‘off the shelf’ permit. The location criteria and placement restrictions must be clear and quantifiable so that they can be checked when an application is received. This is to confirm that the proposed activity can comply when carrying out compliance inspections.

If the operation does not meet the criteria or restrictions, then a permit can still be applied for. However, a bespoke permit application will be required to allow for site-specific assessment of the location and the risk mitigation measures proposed to be put in place. For example, bespoke assessments are required if IBAA is to be used near to springs or wells, or within a groundwater SPZ 1 or 2.

If there is evidence that the record of a sensitive site designation is wrong or out of date, the operator can raise this with us. Subject to checks, we can accept a standard rules application and issue the permit in advance of the record being updated.

The location restrictions and placement criteria in the standard rules are set to provide confidence that the activities carried out under them will not pose an unacceptable risk, without the need for site-specific assessment. This is the case for all standard rules permits, including operations that involve the deposit of other types of waste, such as construction and demolition waste. 

Following consideration of the responses to the consultation, we are satisfied to remove from the draft standard rules the placement restriction within 500 metres of an SSSI designated for geological or physiographical purposes.

An SSSI is designated due to the presence of flora, fauna, or geological or physiographical features which are of special interest. It is accepted that geological or physiographical features are unlikely to be put at harm by activities carried out under this standard rules set. We are also satisfied to remove the restriction on these activities being carried out within an AQMA for PM10, in response to feedback received.  

We are currently satisfied that, with these changes, the proposed standard rules for IBAA and its generic risk assessment are appropriate for the operations that it would cover. The standard rules can be reviewed in future where evidence suggests that other criteria or restrictions could also be relaxed. 

We agree that the use of waste close to its source should be encouraged. However, we need to be satisfied, based on an appropriate level of assessment, that this is not at the cost of the environment being protected.

Q5. Do you agree with the proposed set-back distances to surface water? If no, please explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 2
• no – 5
• do not know – 1

Summary of comments received

Respondents suggested that an explanation of the linkage between the generic risk assessment and distance to watercourse, taking account for geology, would help to understand the reasoning behind restrictions. They asked that we define ‘watercourse’ with consideration to the definition used under the Water Resources Act.

A respondent states that the restriction to springs and water wells should be the same as in the RPS and suggests that the distances are arbitrary without evaluation or risk assessment.

A respondent states that there appears to be limited evidence of harm to human health or environmental incidents related to the use of IBAA under the existing RPS 247. They state that the Environment Agency should demonstrate with clear evidence the need for such restrictive conditions.

Our response

The generic risk assessment and stated set back distances for a standard rules are designed to consider risks from the permitted activity that it could cover to all relevant sensitive receptors, including nearby watercourses. However, as highlighted, the standard rules does not define watercourse, therefore we will add the following clarification in the ‘interpretation’ section of the Rules: ‘watercourse’ for the purposes of these standard rules means a relevant river or watercourse as defined in section 104(3) Water Resources Act 1991.’

The standard rules set back distance and other restrictions ensure IBAA is used in low sensitivity locations to leaching and subsequent movement of heavy metals in groundwater, and from run-off to surface water.    

Standard rules set out the criteria and restrictions under which an operation must comply with in order to be able to apply for this type of ‘off the shelf’ permit. If the operation does not meet the criteria or restrictions, then a permit can still be applied for. However, a bespoke permit application will be required to allow for site-specific assessment of the location and the risk mitigation measures proposed to be put in place.

Standard rules can be reviewed where evidence suggests that a criteria or restriction could be relaxed. We are currently satisfied that the proposed standard rules for IBAA and its generic risk assessment are appropriate for the operations that it would cover.

Q6. Do you agree that the requirement for topographical surveys or other forms of measurement is appropriate to enable compliance with the approved waste recovery plan to be checked? If no, please explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 3
• no – 4
• do not know – 1

Summary of comments received

Respondents stated that topographical survey plans should only need to be provided for projects of significant size and tonnage use or where a topographic survey has been completed for another purpose. It is suggested that as-built construction drawings and other records, such as tonnages of waste received, should be adequate to demonstrate the scheme was built as proposed in other cases.

Our response

The comments provided align with our proposal. There is a need for an applicant to be able to demonstrate compliance with the approved waste recovery plan. However, the form of measurement can be appropriate to the scale and type of construction activity carried out.

Q7. Please provide any other comments you wish to make about the draft standard rules.

Summary of comments received

Respondents commented that the written management system requirement is disproportionate and there should not be a requirement for a Technically Competent Manager (TCM). It was also stated that the cost of a standard rules permit for each construction project, from submitting a waste recovery plan and permit application through to permit surrender, seems disproportionate.

A respondent claimed that the standard rules encourage the use of virgin aggregate, which does not support a circular economy and that the use of virgin aggregate has a significantly higher carbon impact than using IBAA. 

Another respondent stated that the requirements and restrictions of the standard rules will result in IBA and IBAA instead being disposed of at landfill and there is insufficient capacity. It is suggested that the Environment Agency has no strategic plan for managing waste or understanding of the role of Energy from Waste plants.

A respondent claims that, where a permit is granted, there is no definition of when IBAA once placed would reach ‘end of waste’ and therefore when the permit could be surrendered.

A respondent raised concern that time required to submit a standard rules permit application, and for it to be determined and a permit granted, will impact when projects can commence and therefore developers will not apply for a permit. The respondent states that the standard rules proposal does not support sustainable growth and brownfield re-development.

A respondent asks if the IBAA once deposited could later be excavated and re-processed for use. It is also asked if there will be a database that can be accessed showing where the waste has been used, potentially based on topographical survey records.

A respondent commented that the reference in the standard rules to appropriate measures being taken to ensure that the waste is ‘free from contamination’ is unclear.

Our response

Standard rules contain requirements to ensure that the permit can be complied with. This includes that the operator must have a written management system that details the processes and procedures that will be followed on site and an appointed TCM to ensure that the operation is carried out in accordance with environmental regulations and permit conditions. The detail of this should be proportional to the activity carried out.

The charges that apply to a permit are based on regulatory effort. Our charges are reviewed and consulted on periodically to ensure that they remain appropriate for the regulatory tasks involved and are adjusted where needed.

We are willing to work with industry to make the permit application process and other stages of holding the standard rules permit as efficient as possible. In terms of the time required to make an application and get a permit, we recommend that consideration is given to permit application as early in the project design process as possible.

The Environment Agency supports the move towards a circular economy and government growth initiatives including the re-development of brownfield sites to bring them back into beneficial use. Whilst we recognise the part that the use of IBAA in construction projects plays as an alternative to virgin aggregate or end of waste aggregate, IBAA remains a waste. We must ensure that the use of this waste is appropriately regulated.

A standard rules permit can be surrendered upon completion of the waste operation if we agree the site has been left in a satisfactory state. If the permit has been complied with and material remains undisturbed, we would be unlikely to challenge that the IBAA deposited under the permit has been recovered and that it meets end of waste. If the deposited IBAA is later excavated, consideration will again need to be given to the status of the material and the appropriate regulatory requirements and waste controls, as required for any excavated material.

The reference in the standard rules to appropriate measures being taken to ensure that the waste is ‘free from contamination’ is a requirement for all waste operations. If satisfactory production and waste acceptance procedures at site are followed, then there should be no issue with the IBAA becoming contaminated.

Q8. Do you agree that the generic risk assessment adequately covers the risks associated with the storage and use of IBAA in construction? If no, please explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 2
• no – 5
• do not know – 1

Summary of comments received

Respondents claim that requiring that the IBAA be from a single source does not provide any meaningful risk mitigation. They claim it could lead to transport of incoming waste over unnecessary distances where an IBA producer might otherwise be able to reduce transport impact by delivering from more than one production facility. This is especially relevant to large highways schemes.

Respondents ask whether the Environment Agency will accept a Construction Environmental Management Plan as the written management system required by the standard rules.

Respondents ask whether a TCM must be accredited under an approved competence scheme, such as Wamitab. They highlight that construction contractors are not waste treatment facility managers and therefore this presents an additional cost and effort for each project using IBAA under a permit. They question whether waste qualifications are appropriate for construction operations.

Respondents state that it should be made clear that the requirements of the generic risk assessment should only apply to the storage and use of IBAA under the permit and not the wider construction project.

Respondents ask if the assessment of risk to surface water take into account the proposed set back distances, what the basis is for the set backs, and if a justification can be provided in the introductory note for the location restrictions.

A respondent claims that restrictions regarding noise and vibration are unnecessary, impractical and unenforceable and should be removed. This is on the basis that any noise and vibration associated with construction works will be completely un-associated with whether non-waste aggregate or IBAA is used. Any noise and vibration associated with the specific use of IBAA would be completely indistinguishable from noise and vibration from other concurrent construction activities associated with the wider construction works of which the use of IBAA will be only a component.

The respondent also refers to planning issues not being revisited as part of the permitting process with reference to the requirements of the generic risk assessment that accompanies the standard rules. They state that many of the conditions stipulated in the generic risk assessment are planning conditions.

A respondent commented that the generic risk assessment should include specific factors to confirm hydrogen generation risk potential, as well as evidence to confirm compliance with the manufacturers’ Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). 

Our response

Following consideration of the comments made in response to the consultation, we are satisfied to remove from the draft standard rules the requirement that the IBAA be from a single source. 

At the permit application stage, evidence is required that a written management system will be in place upon commencement of the activity. Whilst templates are available, the requirement is that the document will capture information relevant to the operation of the site and compliance with conditions of the permit. If an existing document serves this purpose or can be used as part of the management system, this would be acceptable.

A TCM must be accredited under an approved competence scheme. A TCM is required for other permitted operations where waste is deposited as part of a construction project. The appropriate level of certification for these operations has been agreed with Wamitab. A TCM does not necessarily have to be on site all the time or be employed directly by the user of that IBAA.

The requirements of the generic risk assessment apply to the storage and use of IBAA under the standard rules permit, taking into account the set back distances and other restrictions of the permit. Assessment of risk for the wider construction project, such as noise and vibration, is a separate consideration (for example for planning permission purposes). However, permit holders must be able to demonstrate that the requirements of the generic risk assessment have been met for the waste operations that the permit covers.

We recognise the potential for hydrogen generation. Hydrogen is lighter than air and readily disperses. The placement restrictions ensures hydrogen should not accumulate in voids or is used under residential buildings. We will extend the exclusion of using IBAA under residential buildings to include all building which are occupied by people.

Q9. Are there any potential economic impacts, either positive or negative, that the introduction of the standard rules could have on your business? If no, please explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• yes – 7
• no – 0
• do not know – 1

Summary of comments received

A respondent commented that the introduction of the standard rules could deliver a positive economic impact but did not elaborate.

Other respondents claim that the requirement for standard rules permits will mean that the use of IBAA is too expensive and the administrative burden and lead time required such that it will not allow recovery of IBAA on land to be feasible. The respondents also note that it would be IBAA customers that would be the permit holders and therefore required to meet these costs and not the producers of the material.

It is suggested that the introduction of the standard rules will result in virgin aggregates being the preferred material for projects, which has a higher carbon cost but may be competitively priced in comparison as a result of the charges introduced.

Respondents stated that the majority of IBAA producers are highly regulated installations subject to extensive sampling and testing procedures, whereas recycled aggregates can be produced under exemptions and waste operations. It is claimed that this creates an unlevel playing field and that the higher level of regulatory burden on IBAA use is unjustified.

Respondents claimed that the Environment Agency have failed to consider the government’s Growth Duty on how regulators should have regard to economic growth. It is suggested that the standard rules does not consider any drivers of sustainable economic growth and behaviours of smarter regulation. It is claimed that the introduction of the standard rules is not supported by any case study examples. It also fails to demonstrate clarity on how the Environment Agency helps promote economic and sustainable growth. 

Respondents suggest that the consultation overview is misleading as it refers to the standard rules being a replacement for the current RPS without referencing the new candidate exemption RPS that will be introduced for activities up to 25,000 tonnes. It is also claimed that the tonnage limit of 68,000 tonnes will restrict IBAA producers and subsequently customers with securing bigger contracts. 

Respondents state that IBAA processors want to recover 100% of IBA or IBAA as this is highly beneficial to the environment as alternative use of raw finite materials. The wider promotion of using IBAA in construction would also reduce carbon emissions. It is claimed that the introduction of the standard rules could potentially hinder recovery of valuable materials. It could also potentially change people or customers perception about positives attributes of using IBAA instead of raw finite natural resources, such as limestone or granite. 

Respondents claim that suppliers of virgin aggregates who mix and supply their material with construction and demolition waste and recycled aggregates are not restricted on placement volumes or distances from sensitive receptors. They are not treated in the same ways as producers and users of IBAA. It is stated that it can be clearly demonstrated that the use of IBAA is better for the environment than virgin aggregate mixed with construction and demolition material and that this has not been considered by the Environment Agency.

Our response

The standard rules is being introduced to replace the current RPS (RPS 247) along with a candidate waste exemption RPS. This will give more certainty to industry moving forward on our regulatory approach. This introduction brings these activities in line with other types of recovery on land operation to ensure that the environment is protected. The new candidate exemption RPS will be introduced for activities up to 25,000 tonnes that can meet the requirements of the statement.

In terms of cost, the charges that apply to a permit are based on regulatory effort. Our charges are reviewed and consulted on periodically to ensure that they remain appropriate for the regulatory tasks involved and are adjusted where needed. To minimise the amount of time needed to make an application and get the standard rules permit, we recommend that consideration is given to permit application as early in the project design process as possible. The standard rules permit would need to be held for the duration of the waste operation but can be surrendered upon its completion if we agree the site has been left in a satisfactory state.  

We are working with industry to make the permit application process and other stages of holding the standard rules permit as efficient as possible. 

The tonnage limit of 68,000 tonnes in the standard rules has been informed by risk assessment and subsequent discussion with IBAA producers. IBAA can be used in a larger construction project under a bespoke permit, the determination of which would enable a site-specific assessment of the activity to be carried out.

The Environment Agency supports the recovery of waste as part of a circular economy, in facilitating growth and in achieving net zero. Whilst we recognise the role that the use of IBAA in construction projects plays, we must ensure that the use of IBAA is appropriately regulated. 

We recognise that IBAA producers are often highly regulated installations and, as a result, there is a high level of confidence amongst producers that the IBAA is suitable for use. This should put IBAA producers at an advantage of being able to support applicants to submit permit applications for these activities and that the permit will be able to be complied with. The introduction of the requirement for a permit is intended to create a level playing field in terms of regulatory requirements between the use of IBAA on land and other waste materials, such as construction and demolition waste.

5. Next steps

The responses we received have provided information that supports us in producing standard rules for the use of IBAA in specified construction activities as a waste recovery operation.

We will now review the draft permit and generic risk assessment to produce final versions. We plan to publish them on GOV.UK in the first quarter of 2026.

If you wish to follow up on your responses or have questions relating to this consultation response document, please email RegReform@environment-agency.gov.uk and include ’Standard rules consultation no 29’ in the subject of your email.

6. Annex – List of respondents

List of consultation respondents (by organisation name):

• UK Remediation Ltd
• GRS Roadstone
• Fortis IBA
• Environmental Services Association
• Johnson’s Aggregates Recycling Ltd
• Rock Solid Processing UK Ltd
• CIWM
• MIBAAA