Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 27 October 2025

1. Background

This document summarises the consultation responses on exemptions reform within the environmental permitting system in England and Wales. It also outlines the proposed course of action of the UK and Welsh Governments.

The consultation requested views on proposed amendments to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (‘the Regulations’). The amendments would allow certain regulators the Environment Agency (EA) in England and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) in Wales) to create, amend and remove types of exempt facilities and activities which are not required to hold an environmental permit.

The consultation was jointly launched by Defra and the Welsh Government on 8 April and remained open until 3 June 2025. It was hosted on the Citizen Space digital platform at: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/environmental-regulations/exemptions-reform-to-the-environmental-permitting/. Responses were submitted through the Citizen Space portal and via email, comprising both quantitative and qualitative evidence.

2. Objective of proposals

Environmental permitting plays an important role in protecting the environment and human health from a wide variety of risks, such as from flooding, water and air pollution, and contamination of land from waste. It applies to tens of thousands of operators, ranging from individuals at a domestic scale, up to large industrial sites. A post implementation review of the Regulations, published in 2023, found that the Regulations appeared to be functioning effectively, and that the hierarchy of levels of control that underlies the framework has delivered material benefits. The review also identified potential improvements, such as making the framework more responsive to changes on the ground and the needs of operators. Dan Corry’s independent review of Defra’s regulatory landscape, published in April 2025, recommended that the government ensured adaptive regulation through accelerating updates to the Regulations to allow regulators more flexibility to take sensible, risk-based decisions.

Our proposals set out in the consultation document seek to achieve these aims and objectives by streamlining the arrangements around the types of controls that apply to different types of environmental risk. Our aim is to simplify and speed up the process for EA and NRW to create, amend and remove types of facilities and activities which are classed as exempt, and not required to hold an environmental permit. This would make the permitting framework more responsive to changing environmental risk profiles and enable regulators to take risk-based decisions to maintain proportionate levels of oversight. Our proposals include options to safeguard the regulators’ transparency and accountability when making decisions on how the rules for exempt facilities should apply. We would make these changes by laying a statutory instrument before Parliament to amend the Regulations.

3. Overview of respondents

We received 79 responses from a range of individuals, businesses, public bodies and others. Of these responses, 64 responses were submitted via the Citizen Space portal and 15 were submitted via email.

Responses based on respondent type

Q4. Type of respondent	Number	Percentage[footnote 1]
Academic or research	1	1%
Industry representative organisation or trade body	16	20%
Charity or social enterprise	1	1%
Community group	0	0%
Consultancy	11	14%
Individual	7	9%
Local government	4	5%
Non-governmental organisation	7	9%
Farmer	2	3%
Waste operator	4	5%
Utility company or provider	5	6%
Land owner or management	0	0%
Other public body	6	8%
Other business	6	8%
Any other description	8	10%
Not answered	1	1%

Responses based on organisation size

Q6. Number of staff members	Number	Percentage
1	2	3%
2 to 9	11	14%
10 to 49	12	15%
50 to 499	10	13%
500+	23	29%
Not answered	21	27%

Responses based on location

Q7. Location	Number	Percentage
East Midlands	8	10%
East of England	4	5%
London	14	18%
Northeast England	0	0%
Northwest England	6	8%
Southeast England (excluding London)	10	13%
Southwest England	9	11%
West Midlands	8	10%
Yorkshire and Humber	7	9%
Wales	7	9%
None of the above	1	1%
Not answered	5	6%

Responses from operators of regulated or exempt facilities under the Regulations

Number of operators[footnote 2]	Number	Percentage of total respondents
Q8. Operators of regulated facilities	50	63%
Q9. Operators of exempt activities	42	53%

Responses based on operating sectors

Q10. Type of respondent	Number	Percentage
Water discharge	44	56%
Groundwater	34	43%
Flood risk	31	39%
Waste operations	57	72%
Waste controlling and transporting	50	63%
Other areas of the Regulations	6	8%

4. Summary of responses

The Regulations

Responses to question 11

	Yes	No	Unsure	Not answered
Q11. Do you agree that lead regulators should be given these new powers?	73%	13%	10%	4%

Comments from respondents on question 11

A majority of respondents to the consultation agreed that the proposed powers should be awarded to the lead regulators (EA and NRW). Some respondents raised concerns about regulator safeguards, questioning transparency and the strength of procedural protections when using powers.

Our response on question 11

Strong support from respondents further validates the proposal for giving these powers to both the EA and NRW.

We intend to do this by creating a new process that will allow regulators to publish definitions for exemptions and the conditions that apply to them. We intend to design this process to operate in a similar way to the process already in place for publishing standard rules.

This may include transitional arrangements which would require regulators to publish initial definitions of exemptions that replicate and replace the current definitions of exemptions within the Regulations in scope for the new process. This would mean that in the future, exemptions will not be defined in the Regulations, but no current exemption will be changed unless and until regulators use the new process to make changes.

We intend to ensure that use of the power by EA and NRW is subject to robust safeguards. These will provide an appropriate level of transparency and opportunity for public engagement (see ‘safeguards’ section).

Responses to questions 12 - 17

	Yes	No	Unsure	Not answered
Q12. Do you agree that these powers should apply to flood risk activities?	59%	5%	23%	13%
Q13. Do you agree that these powers should apply to waste operations?	68%	10%	11%	10%
Q14. Do you agree that these powers should apply to water discharges?	62%	8%	18%	13%
Q15. Do you agree that these powers should apply to groundwater activities?	59%	8%	19%	14%
Q16. Do you agree that, in England only, these powers should apply to the waste controlling and transporting activities if introduced to the Regulations?	61%	4%	22%	14%
Q17. Should these powers apply to any other class of facilities?	19%	11%	54%	15%

Comments from respondents on questions 12 to 17

Respondents strongly supported application of the proposed powers across all five classes of facility. Operators and other parties within these sectors were fairly represented in the total number of respondents. Some respondents suggested other specific classes of facility in the permitting framework that the powers should apply to, including medium combustion plant and radioactive substances. A small number of respondents queried whether the power would be flexible in allowing future extension to other classes of facility.

Our response on questions 12 to 17

Initially, we intend the power to apply to the four classes of facility as laid out in the consultation:

• flood risk activities
• groundwater activities
• waste operations
• water discharges

In England only, Defra’s reforms in respect of waste carriers, brokers and dealers are intended to bring regulation of this part of the waste sector within the environmental permitting regulations. As part of these reforms, we will ensure that the proposed powers are made available to be used for these activities in England.

We do not intend to expand the application of the power to mobile plant at this time. This is due to ongoing policy initiatives exploring exemption reform for installations and other related categories of ‘industrial facilities’, including mobile industrial plant. For more information on this, see this consultation on modernising environmental permitting for industrial emissions which closed on the 21 October 2025.

At this time, we will not be extending the power to additional classes of facility. Other policy initiatives may explore further application through future consultations and subsequent amendments.

Responses to questions 18 to 19

	Yes	No	Unsure	Not answered
Q18. Do you agree that these powers should be given to the Environment Agency in relation to facilities in England	80%	9%	3%	9%
Q19. Do you agree that these powers should be given to Natural Resources Wales in relation to facilities in Wales?	75%	8%	9%	9%

Comments from respondents on questions 18 to 19

Responses on awarding the powers to EA and NRW included commentary on regulator capability and funding required to make best use of the proposed powers. Some respondents raised concerns about interactions with other regulations and consistency of application across regional boundaries.

Our response on questions 18 to 19

Strong support from respondents further validates the proposal for giving these powers to both the EA and NRW. When exercising these powers, regulators will need to respect their statutory responsibilities and the specific safeguards discussed in the next section.

We do not propose extending these powers to local authorities, given their limited role in issuing permits for the classes of facilities in scope of these reforms. Local authorities regularly engage with the lead regulators, and our proposal should not prevent them from co-operating as they do today, including in relation to the use of the new powers. Permitting and exemptions for industrial installations, including where local authorities play a greater role, are explored in more detail in Defra’s consultation on modernising environmental permitting for industrial emissions which closed on 21 October 2025.

Regulators’ use of these powers to make, amend and revoke exemptions is intended to be carried out using current funding mechanisms. 

Safeguarding

Safeguard for objectives responses

	Yes	No	Unsure	Not answered
Q20. Do you agree that regulators making use of these powers should only do so if they do not contravene any of the applicable objectives and criteria?	85%	3%	5%	8%

Comments from respondents on question 21

Q21. What other objectives should apply?

43 respondents provided substantive responses to this open question. Some responses suggested that further objectives could be added requiring regulators to consider:

• environmental principles
• circular economy principles
• the waste hierarchy
• biodiversity, sustainability, nuisance, or efficiency outcomes

Some others made suggestions about general principles that could be considered when making decisions about the design of the permitting system. These suggested principles included supporting innovation and growth, reducing burdens on businesses and operational burdens, and avoiding duplication where other environmental regulations apply to facilities.

Finally, some respondents suggested that certain operational objectives or purposes should apply to the functions of regulators in the permitting framework. They include delivering transparency, clarity, collaboration, and proportionality.

Our response on question 21

We intend to apply this safeguard by requiring the new process to create, amend and revoke exemptions to be used in accordance with the objectives and criteria that already apply to regulator functions under the permitting regulations.

The relevant objectives and criteria are:

Flood risk activities

• Managing flood risk
• Managing impacts on land drainage
• Environmental protection

Waste operations

Protection of human health and the environment as described in Article 13 of the Waste Framework Directive. For example, to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health, without harming the environment, and, in particular:

• without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals
• without causing a nuisance through noise or odours
• without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest

Water discharge activities

Exempt activities must not cause pollution of inland freshwaters, coastal waters, or relevant territorial waters.

Groundwater activities

We do not intend to include any further objectives or conditions that apply to the new process. Regulators will still need to comply with other relevant statutory obligations and respect wider principles that apply to their environmental permitting functions such as:

• environmental principles under the Environment Act 2021
• the growth duty
• the regulators code
• EA’s statutory duties to protect and enhance the environment, while supporting sustainable development

Safeguard for environmental risk responses

	Yes	No	Unsure	Not answered
Q22. Do you agree that these powers should only be available to exempt a type of facility from the need to hold a permit to operate if that activity is assessed as low risk?	72%	9%	9%	10%

Comments from respondents on question 23

Q23. How should the level of risk be defined?

60 respondents responded to this open question. There was detailed feedback on risk assessment methodology, and general support for consideration of the risk source-pathway-receptor model. Some responses suggested that transparency and consistency are important.

Some responses suggested that regulators should not be able to remove an exemption that applies to a type of facility assessed as carrying a low risk.

Other responses suggested that operator competence and local factors should be accounted for.

Our response on question 23

While assessments of risk are commonly used in the current permitting system, the Regulations do not explicitly require them. In practice, regulators can choose to use either site-specific or generic risk assessments to set appropriate conditions for bespoke permits or sets of standard rules. Publishing these assessments during consultations promotes transparency and helps inform public responses.

We consider that the present arrangements have been shown to work well for regulated facilities that require a permit. They give regulators flexibility, while still requiring detailed controls for risk as well as compliance monitoring. However, this level of flexibility would not be appropriate for regulators designing exemptions, which can set comparatively loose conditions on operators, and are only proportionate for facilities with a comparatively low risk level.

We intend to require regulators to publish an assessment of risk when consulting on proposals to use their proposed new powers to make a new exemption or revise an existing exemption. This should provide for transparency in the process and allow consultation respondents to challenge the proposals if they consider them inappropriate.

We consider regulators should have freedom to choose whatever risk assessment methodology they deem appropriate at the time of making proposals. Therefore, we do not intend to set criteria for the assessments of risk they would use.

It is likely that these assessments would be similar to the assessments that are already routinely made when regulators prepare standard rules. These evaluate generic risks for a type of facility using the source-pathway-receptor model. Exemption conditions, which may comprise location criteria, would likely aim to break or limit any source-pathway-receptor linkages.

We will also not limit the use of the power according to any assessed risk rating. We consider this would be impracticable to require without specified criteria for risk assessment.

This approach aims to improve flexibility and help to future-proof the permitting framework, by enabling assessment methods to flex in response to developments which change our understanding of environmental risk, such as emerging technologies and the impacts of climate change. Regulator decisions will continue to be subject to applicable objectives, as well as any future government guidance or directions.

We will not require regulators to publish assessments of risk when using the power to revoke exemptions. However, regulators may choose to do so in order to fulfil the applicable objectives of each class of facility.

We will also not introduce any new requirements in legislation to account for operator requirements or local factors. We consider that long-established arrangements for assessing operator competence and environmental impact are already sufficient in the environmental permitting system.

Safeguard requiring consultation responses

	Yes	No	Unsure	Not answered
Q24. Do you agree that regulators should only be able to use these powers after they have undertaken a public consultation and published a response to it?	75%	9%	11%	5%

Comments from respondents on question 24

While there was no open question inviting further comments on this safeguard, some respondents provided comments separately. These included suggestions that:

• consultations could target relevant stakeholders without public engagement
• the level of consultation should be proportionate to the impact of the changes being proposed
• clear responses should be given to all consultations

Our response on question 24

Engagement with key stakeholders, including operators of regulated facilities, helps ensure regulation can be fully considered. Facilitating scrutiny ahead of significant regulatory changes, supported by an impact assessment, improves understanding of impacts and allows for adjustments to be made, where deemed appropriate.

At present, consultations are already an important part of the permitting process. In most classes of facilities, regulators undertake consultation before agreeing any standard rules, and before granting any bespoke permits. We consider that the existing procedures to support this have been shown to perform effectively.

We will require regulators to undertake public consultation prior to using the proposed new powers. This will aim to deliver transparency and maximise the opportunity for informed stakeholder engagement, which should provide for a more efficient process and improved outcomes. Regulators may choose to publish these alongside any applicable assessments of risk and proposed conditions. Regulators will be able to target consultations to the relevant operators of activities and communities affected or with high interest.

We will not require regulators to consult when using the new process to make minor administrative changes. These can include amendments to address typographical errors and formatting issues, or minor updates to ensure accuracy or compliance without affecting the core content, purpose or risk.

Safeguard on multiple facilities on a single site responses

	Yes	No	Unsure	Not answered
Q25. When this power is used to exempt facilities from permitting requirements, should a limit apply on the number or total scale of facilities on a single site without a permit?	56%	24%	14%	6%

This series of open questions allowed respondents to answer questions relating to different types of facilities.

The number of responses received is as follows:

Question	Number of responses received
Q26. How should such a limit be set for flood risk activities?	33
Q27. How should such a limit be set for waste operations (beyond the existing plans that the total amount of each waste type at a site should not exceed the lowest limit in the exemptions registered)?	44
Q28. How should such a limit be set for water discharge activities?	38
Q29. How should such a limit be set for groundwater activities?	34
Q30. How should such a limit be set for waste controlling and transporting activities?	34
Q31. Do you have any further comments on how such limits would be set?	23

Comments from respondents on questions 26 to 31

We identified recurring themes across responses that are relevant to multiple classes of facility. These include key considerations for setting limits – such as cumulative risk, difficultly in defining geographic boundaries, and equitable treatment of operators and their supply chains. Respondents also proposed alternative approaches, including factoring in site-specific conditions, operator compliance history, and the use of tools such as assessment frameworks or compatibility matrices.

Further general comments included that any processes used to set limits should be based on evidence, subject to appeal, and evaluated in a post implementation review.

Some respondents suggested that there was no need for a broad limit of the kind consulted on and that a simplistic approach may inadvertently prevent useful activities from taking place.

For flood risk, water discharge, and groundwater activities, some respondents noted that the concept of a ‘single site’ is not appropriate for the purpose of assessing the impact of the number of exempt facilities in an area, as risk accumulates to receptors throughout a flood plain or watercourse. Impacts may depend on the materials involved, capacity of local water bodies, and seasonal factors, such as surface water run-off.

For waste operations, some respondents highlighted that the separate reforms, which will limit waste exemptions by the lowest limit of any registered exemption, would deliver the intentions of this proposal. Others noted that cumulative risks depend on worst case scenarios and may arise as a result of handling or co-mingling high-risk materials.

Our response on questions 26 to 31

A majority of respondents support the concept of limits being set on multiple exemptions on a single site. However, there was no clear consensus on how this should apply.

The results show that a broad limit across all types of flood risk, water discharge, or groundwater activities would be unable to effectively respond to the nature of the risks associated with each individual type of facility. Therefore, we will not require regulators to limit the number of exemptions that may be operated at any one site. Instead, regulators will have the discretion to define the scope and limitations of activities at the time of exercising the power. They are best placed to determine the appropriate conditions that should apply to a particular type of facility, in accordance with relevant objectives and considering an assessment of risk.

Limits to waste exemptions are being taken forward under the policy reforms to waste permitting. This will not be affected by the policy discussed here.

Additional safeguards

Responses
	Yes	No	Unsure	Not answered
Q32. Should any other safeguards apply to the use of these powers?	42%	15%	30%	13%

Comments from respondents on question 32

35 respondents provided substantive responses to the open section of this question. Some suggested allowing a transitional arrangement for exemptions being revoked, requiring regulators to inform operators, and allow time for them to acquire a permit. Others suggested that any new processes should be subject to appeal and designed to operate with transparency and consistency.

Our response on question 32

We do not propose to apply any further specific safeguards to the exercise of this power.

We would expect that, where appropriate, regulators will make suitable arrangements to inform affected operators of any changes and provide transitionary arrangements. Alongside requiring regulators to consult the public on proposed changes to exemptions and to publish associated assessments of risk, other provisions already in the Regulations would deliver transparency, such as those in relation to regulators’ public participation duties.

Costs and benefits

Cost responses

	Yes	No	Unsure	Not answered
Q33. Do you think these powers will impose any additional costs or burdens on yourself or your organisation?	35%	32%	28%	5%
Q34. Do you think these powers could result in harm to the environment or human health?	15%	52%	23%	10%

Comments from respondents on questions 33 to 34

A theme across responses was concern over potential increased costs for operators, particularly related to an increased administrative burden with more paperwork, monitoring, and time spent responding to regulator-led consultations. Uncertainty about how and when the new powers will be used was also mentioned, with concerns that greater regulatory flexibility could lead to uncertainty and make it difficult for operators to plan investments with confidence. To mitigate this concern, respondents mentioned that they want to see a fair and transparent process for implementing changes, with ongoing dialogue between government, regulators, and industry.

Several stakeholders expressed uncertainty about the potential costs of the proposed regulatory powers, noting that the financial impact will depend on how the powers are implemented. Others noted that if operators are simply providing the same information as they do now, there may be no additional costs at all.

Respondents also highlighted concerns about the resource and cost implications for regulators. While some respondents expect that registered exemptions will remain free, they acknowledge that administering them will still incur costs, leading to concerns about how regulators will fund the additional work.

Respondents mentioned that exemptions should only apply to activities that pose genuinely low risks to human health and the environment. They also stated that if the powers are used responsibly and transparently with appropriate safeguards in place, they could streamline regulation without increasing harm. However, if misused or poorly implemented, some respondents mentioned they could allow higher-risk activities to slip through without sufficient oversight. A few responses also highlighted the need to consider the cumulative effects of many low-risk activities, which could collectively pose a greater risk if not properly managed.

Benefit responses

	Yes	No	Unsure	Not answered
Q35. Do you think these powers will result in any benefits to yourself or your organisation?	46%	15%	33%	6%
Q36. Do you think these powers could result in additional benefits to the environment or human health?	43%	14%	32%	11%

Comments from respondents on questions 35 to 36

Several respondents noted that the reforms could lead to more proportionate regulation based on genuine environmental risk, potentially resulting in time and cost savings for operators from fewer permit application fees and less administrative work. Some stakeholders also welcomed the possibility of clearer and more consistent rules compared to the current reliance on Regulatory Position Statements (RPSs), helping businesses act with greater confidence.

Several respondents noted that the reforms could lead to more proportionate regulation based on genuine environmental risk, potentially resulting in time and cost savings for operators from fewer permit application fees and less administrative work. Some stakeholders also welcomed the possibility of clearer and more consistent rules, compared to the current reliance on Regulatory Position Statements (RPSs), helping businesses act with greater confidence.

Many stakeholders welcomed the potential for the proposed regulatory powers to help reduce criminal activity in the waste sector. Respondents noted that the current system is often exploited by illegal operators, who undercut legitimate businesses by operating outside of permit or exemption rules. A more robust and agile regulatory framework was thought to help address this issue by enabling quicker decisions and more flexible updates to exemptions, closing loopholes that are being abused.

Respondents highlighted potential environmental and public health benefits from the proposed changes, including improved air and water quality. It was also mentioned that the reforms could facilitate quicker environmental remediation in response to pollution incidents, and that the ability to quickly remove exemptions could reduce the need for costly remedial action.

Our response on questions 33 to 36

Responses to the costs and benefits questions reflect views and concerns raised in response to other sections of the consultation. This document has already responded to these concerns in section 4: summary of responses. A de minimis assessment was produced alongside the consultation and will be updated to reflect additional evidence provided by respondents.

5. The way forward

Given the general support for these proposals, our intention is to introduce these changes through amendments to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016.

Defra is planning to take appropriate steps so that the required amendments to the Regulations in England can be made in 2026. In Wales, the Welsh Government supports the need for implementing these changes but, due to the timing of this publication, will not take a decision on amendments to regulations until after the Senedd elections in May 2026.

These changes to regulator exemption powers will be evaluated as part of the next scheduled post implementation review of the full Regulations due in 2028.

We will continue to work closely with regulators to regularly review the guidance on operating under exemptions and will seek to update it as needed.

These proposed amendments are complementary to work to further streamline the Regulations and provide consistency for operators through the separate proposals to reform industrial permitting, regulation of water abstraction and impoundment, and reservoir safety. They also deliver on Dan Corry’s recommendation in his recent review of Defra’s regulatory landscape to empower regulators to make sensible risk-based decisions.

Once the new powers come into effect, we anticipate that the Environment Agency will use them to introduce targeted exemptions designed to support construction projects across England. These exemptions will apply to low risk and often temporary activities commonly associated with construction, such as:

• site drainage – including the channelling and discharge of uncontaminated water (for example, rainwater and water generated during construction) through temporary ditches, culverts, gutters, and drains
• site investigation works
• dewatering operations
• time limited storage of imported inert waste materials (for example, visual screening bunds)
• installation of temporary floodwater barriers
• groundworks within floodplains (for example, digging foundations or preparing working platforms for major equipment)

This initiative delivers on the UK Government’s commitment to streamline environmental permitting for low-risk activities within the planning process, as outlined in the Treasury’s ‘New approach to ensure regulators and regulation support growth’ policy paper published earlier this year.

By using the proposed powers to implement these changes, transparency will be embedded in the process. The safeguards detailed in this document will apply, requiring the Environment Agency to consult on any proposed exemptions – including the appropriate controls and conditions needed to uphold environmental protections.

This will ensure proportionate regulation: robust oversight of harmful activities, alongside sensible easements that prevent low-risk, temporary operations from unnecessarily burdening the system, whilst maintaining protections for local communities and the environment.

If you have any queries about this document, contact: envregs@defra.gov.uk.

---

1. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number – this may result in some percentage totals exceeding 100% ↩

2. Total exceeds 79 (full number of respondents) as some respondents are both operators of permitted activities and exempt activities. ↩