Consultation outcome

Standard rules permit consultation number 30: summary of consultation responses

Updated 13 April 2026

1. Introduction

The Environment Agency is responsible for regulating ‘groundwater activities’ as set out in Schedule 22 of the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 (the EPR). These can be defined as activities that take place on or below the ground surface with the potential to impact upon the quality of groundwater.

Groundwater activities require an environmental permit issued by the Environment Agency unless an exemption from permitting applies. In October 2023 the EPR was amended meaning that, as an alternative to only issuing ‘bespoke permits’, the Environment Agency can also choose to regulate groundwater activities using a ‘standard rules permit’ (SRP) approach.

The purpose of this consultation was to engage with stakeholders to obtain their views on new SRPs for:

• new cemetery developments proposing moderate burial rates
• new cemetery developments proposing burials into unweathered bedrock
• new natural burials grounds
• new closed-loop ground source heating and cooling (CL-GSHC) systems in certain settings

2. How we ran the consultation

We (Environment Agency) formally consulted from 1 April 2025 until 24 June 2025, using our Citizen Space consultation website. We asked 25 questions, which covered the following topics:

• Q1 to Q5: the proposed SRP and associated generic risk assessment for new cemeteries with moderate burial rates
• Q6 to Q10: the proposed SRP and associated generic risk assessment for new cemeteries proposing burials into unweathered bedrock
• Q11 to Q17: the proposed SRP and associated generic risk assessment for new natural burials grounds
• Q18 to Q23: the proposed SRP and associated generic risk assessment for new closed-loop ground source heating and cooling systems
• Q24 to Q25: general consultation questions

We received 17 responses to the consultation. However, given that the consultation covers 2 industry sectors, not all respondents provided answers to all the questions. Of the 17 responses we received:

• 2 were from individuals
• 15 were on behalf of an organisation, group, or trade association

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

The consultation responses were generally supportive of the proposal to produce these SRPs for the burial of human remains, and CL-GSHC systems. On the whole, the responses recognised that the SRPs would result in cost and time savings for operators when compared to a bespoke permit. The responses identified some concerns with the permits and risk assessments as follows:

• the SRP covering burials into unweathered bedrock does not sufficiently protect against risks associated with migration of pollutants along fractures or fissures in the rock
• the SRP for natural burial grounds did not consider circumstances where the use of embalming fluid was unavoidable
• the SRP covering CL-GSHC systems should not apply thermal monitoring requirements to heating-only systems

We will address these concerns by updating the wording of the permits and risk assessments prior to final publication as detailed in the ‘conclusions and next steps’ parts of the sections below. We hope to make the permits available to operators by the end of June 2026.

4. Responses to the proposed SRP for cemeteries with moderate burial rates: questions 1 to 5

This SRP allows new cemetery developments to operate with moderate burial rates subject to geographical constraints and monitoring conditions.

Question 1. SRP for moderate burial rates

Do you agree with our proposal to use SRPs for new cemeteries with moderate burial rates? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 5
• Agree – 4
• Neither agree nor disagree – 1
• Disagree – 2
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 5

Summary of comments received

The comments received were generally supportive and acknowledged the financial and time-saving benefits that SRPs will bring the sector.

Some comments raised concerns that:

• separation between new and existing cemeteries was inappropriate, and rules should apply to all burial grounds
• a standardised approach might overlook some site-specific conditions and may unintentionally privilege parts of the nation where the Environment Agency is better resourced

Our response

We note that the response to this question was largely supportive, with the majority of those who answered selecting agree, or strongly agree.

Our regulatory approach differentiates between ‘new’ and ‘existing’ cemeteries because of feedback received from the bereavement sector during a public consultation in 2021 on proposed legislative changes. This proposed the introduction of an exemption from the requirement to have a permit for cemeteries, and the feedback indicated that there would be difficulties in applying this to cemeteries that were already in operation. In response to the 2021 consultation, the Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) decided to take forward the legislative changes in a manner that did not retrospectively apply the exemption to cemeteries that were already in operation prior to the changes coming into force. For details of that consultation response, see question 3b of Groundwater and surface water discharge activities. This SRP consultation does not propose to change this approach to the regulation of cemeteries, which has been in place since 2 October 2023.

Whilst the conditions within the SRP are not site-specific, they do restrict the activity in the most sensitive areas such as within source protection zone 1 (SPZ1), and within 250 metres of any well, spring or borehole that is used to supply water for domestic drinking or food production purposes. The eligibility criteria also restrict the use of the permit within certain distances from protected sites. To further reduce the risks, the burial rate allowed on each aquifer reflects the sensitivity of the underlying groundwater.

SRP applications are processed by a national permitting service under a nationally consistent framework, not by local officers.

Question 2. Rules and constraints in SRPs for cemeteries with moderate burial rates

Do you agree with the rules and constraints in the proposed SRP for cemeteries with moderate burial rates? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 2
• Agree – 8
• Neither agree nor disagree – 1
• Disagree – 1
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 5

Summary of comments received

Some positive comments pointed out that this bridges the gap in regulation between the exemption and bespoke permits, and that this is a proportionate regulatory solution.

Some comments sought clarification on:

• the frequency of reporting records to the Environment Agency
• how the burial density figure was determined and whether they would be relaxed in exceptional circumstances (such as a pandemic)

A comment from the respondent who answered ‘disagree’ expressed value in groundwater monitoring but had concerns about the lack of commitment to enforcement or periodic review of the permit.

Another response pointed out the difficulty in setting annual burial limits when customers have reserved grave plots in advance.

Our response

We note that the response to this question was positive, with the majority of those who answered selecting agree, or strongly agree.

Section 4.1 of the proposed SRP covers details of records. The permit does not require operators to return these records to us, although these must be made available on request, for example, as part of compliance checks.

The monitoring requirement proposed in the permits is the visual examination of water features within the cemetery rather than collection and chemical analysis of groundwater samples. We undertake a range of activities to ensure that operators are complying with their environmental permit. We may take appropriate enforcement action against an operator if they cause, are likely to cause, or knowingly permit groundwater pollution. Any action taken will be in line with the Environment Agency enforcement and sanctions policy. We are required to keep all SRPs under review and revise those rules when necessary.

Exceeding annual burial limits specified in an environmental permit would be a breach of a permit condition. To avoid this, operators must consider factors such as variability of annual demand, reserved plots, contingency arrangements and so on, in determining the annual burial limit of their cemeteries. These factors should also be considered when producing your written management system (required under rule 1.1.1 of the permit).

The density figure of 2,500 burials per hectare comes from a condition set out in the exemption for low-environmental-risk cemeteries. This was consulted on in 2021 as part of proposed legislative changes, although originally expressed as an area per grave. See question 3b of Groundwater and surface water discharge activities for more information. We have set out a position statement (L2) on mass casualty emergencies in the Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection. In the event of exceptional circumstances where there was extreme demand for burial plots (such as a pandemic), we would work with government to develop an appropriate position.

Question 3. Requirements preventing operators from using this proposed SRP

Would any of the requirements prevent prospective operators from using the proposed SRP? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Yes – 1
• No – 3
• Don’t know – 7
• No opinion – 1
• Not answered – 5

Summary of comments received

Three responses thought annual burial limits could be a potential problem, with one respondent asking whether SRPs should only become mandatory when burials reach a certain level.

One response suggested an operator might receive a ‘better’ permit by pursuing a bespoke permit rather than this SRP.

Our response

The most common response to this question was ‘don’t know’, possibly because there are limited examples of cemeteries operating under a permit.

Burials limits are a necessary condition within the SRP, as they control the amount of pollutants that could enter groundwater from a cemetery development. We believe that bespoke permits are necessary to control new cemeteries proposing burial limits above those in the SRP, because they pose a higher risk to groundwater and environmental receptors.

A permit (either standard rules or bespoke) only becomes mandatory where new cemetery developments are unable to meet the burial limits, and other rules set out in the exemption criteria for low environmental risk cemeteries. It is only where the conditions in the exemption cannot be met that a permit is required.

Where a permit is required, an operator can choose whether to apply for the SRP or a bespoke permit. SRPs are beneficial to operators as the cost of the permit application is significantly cheaper than that of a bespoke permit. Also, the time taken to determine the permit application for SRPs is typically far shorter.

Question 4. Generic risk assessment for this SRP 

Do you agree that the risks associated with the activity are identified by the generic risk assessment? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 2
• Agree – 8
• Neither agree nor disagree – 1
• Disagree – 1
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 5

Summary of comments received

Some positive comments indicated that the main risks are catered for in the risk assessment, and that the generic risk assessment allows more flexibility and cost efficiency for smaller cemeteries. Another respondent agreed with the question because of the condition prohibiting burials in SPZ1 and SPZ2.

One respondent asked for clarification on the terms ‘hazardous substance’ and ‘non-hazardous pollutant’.

Another respondent was concerned that the generic risk assessment overlooked:

• local variations in soil type, bedrock permeability, and aquifer vulnerability
• how environmental conditions might change in response to climate change

Our response

We note that the response to this question was positive, with the majority of those who answered selecting agree, or strongly agree.

Whilst a generic risk assessment does not consider site-specific information, burial limits depend on the aquifer designation of the receiving bedrock and superficial deposits, which are partly based on aquifer properties such as permeability.

Requirements set out within the permit ensure that the environment is protected. We periodically review SRPs. If environmental conditions change (for example due to climate change) we will review the appropriateness of the permit and its conditions, as part of such a review.

Hazardous substances are defined as substances that are toxic, persistent, and liable to bio-accumulate, or that give rise to an equivalent level of concern. Non-hazardous pollutants are defined as any pollutant other than a hazardous substance. We have published a non-exhaustive list of pollutants which confirms whether they are a hazardous substance or a non-hazardous pollutant. See the 2025 07 17 Confirmed hazardous substances list for more information.

Formaldehyde is a non-hazardous pollutant that is a common ingredient of embalming fluid. For more information on risk assessments for pollutants associated with cemeteries (such as formaldehyde), see Cemeteries and burials: groundwater risk assessments.

Question 5. Measures in this SRP

Do you agree that the measures under this SRP to manage, mitigate or reduce the environmental risks are appropriate?

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 2
• Agree – 8
• Neither agree nor disagree – 2
• Disagree – 0
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 5

Summary of comments received

One comment said that the measures were clear and could easily be put into practice by operators.

Some comments asked for clarity on:

• how the stand-off distances from receptors had been calculated, and whether there is scope for alteration of these distances
• how breaches of monitoring conditions will be addressed, who would be responsible for enforcement, and what remediation could be undertaken to address any problems that arose

One response expressed concerns that sites underlain by more than one rock type with differing aquifer designations were subject to more risk than sites underlain by only one rock type.

Our response

We note that the response to this question was very positive, with the majority of those who answered selecting agree, or strongly agree.

We are responsible for compliance and enforcement actions associated with permits covering the burial of human remains. The monitoring requirement proposed in the permits is the visual inspection of water features within the cemetery rather than collection and chemical analysis of groundwater samples. The permit requires operators to notify us (Environment Agency) of any breach of permit conditions, and we will take appropriate action depending on the nature of the problem. Decisions on what action to take will be made on a case-by-case basis.

The distances set out in the SRP represent good practice and are reasonable stand-off distances designed to protect environmental receptors. Inside these distances, a site-specific risk assessment is required to determine whether such a proposal would present an unacceptable risk to the environment. Cemeteries proposing to undertake burials inside these stand-off distances would therefore have to operate under a bespoke permit.

Whilst a cemetery located on multiple aquifer designations may benefit from higher burial limits, the loading of pollutants into each aquifer will be consistent for all cemeteries operating under this permit, regardless of the geological setting.

Conclusions and next steps

We have reviewed and responded to the comments provided on the proposal to introduce SRPs for cemeteries with moderate burial rates. In considering these responses, we do not feel that it is necessary to amend this proposal and will take it forward for final publication.

5. Responses to the proposed SRP for cemeteries allowing burials into unweathered bedrock: questions 6 to 10

This SRP allows new cemetery developments to bury human remains directly into unweathered bedrock subject to geographical constraints and monitoring conditions. The purpose of this proposal was to support those communities in England that are located in areas with insufficient soil thickness to allow burials into soil.

Question 6. SRP for burials directly into unweathered bedrock

Do you agree with our proposal to use SRPs for new cemeteries with burials into bedrock? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 1
• Agree – 3
• Neither agree nor disagree – 0
• Disagree – 0
• Strongly disagree – 1
• Not answered – 12

Summary of comments received

One respondent agreed with the proposal, due to the condition for burials not to take place within SPZs. Another positive response indicated that the proposal would help providers to plan new burial provisions more easily.

The respondent that strongly disagreed said that bedrock may not provide sufficient attenuation of pollutants, and that groundwater feeds into drinking water sources. They also noted the risks associated with pollutant migration along fractures and karstic features in some rocks.

Our response

We note that the response to this question was positive, with the majority of those who answered selecting agree, or strongly agree.

Whilst the purifying powers of the soil zone are bypassed when burials are placed directly into bedrock, measures have been put into the permit to address this risk. For example, the SRPs cannot be utilised within SPZ1, SPZ2, or SPZ3, which provides additional protection to public water supply sources.

We recognise the uncertainties associated with the presence of fractures within bedrock, and how these have the potential to represent a pathway for pollutants to migrate along. Based on this feedback, we will add another condition to the permit stating that burials must not be located close to swallow holes, sink holes, or similar natural features. This condition will further reduce the likelihood of pollutants entering rapid migration pathways.

Question 7. Rules and constraints in SRPs for burials directly into unweathered bedrock

Do you agree with the rules and constraints in the proposed SRP for cemeteries with burials into bedrock? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 1
• Agree – 2
• Neither agree nor disagree – 0
• Disagree – 2
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 12

Summary of comments received

One respondent answered ‘agree’ because of the rule prohibiting burials within SPZs. Another respondent broadly agreed with the contents of the permit but questioned whether operators would have the resources to fulfil the monitoring requirements in the SRP.

Some concerns were raised about:

• the condition restricting burials where there is 2 metres of overlying soils present
• the possibility of pollutant migration along fractures within bedrock

Our response

The response to this question was mixed, but with the majority of those who answered selecting agree or strongly agree.

Similar to our response to question 6, based on feedback of the risks posed by pollutant migration along fractures, we will update the proposed SRP to include an extra rule restricting burials close to swallow holes, sink holes, or similar natural features. This will further reduce the risk posed by rapid migration of pollutants along natural features.

Burials directly into bedrock must only be undertaken where there is insufficient soil zone thickness present at the site. Where the soil zone is 2 metres in thickness or greater, we expect the burial to take place in the soil zone, not the underlying bedrock. A condition within the SRP therefore restricts burials into unweathered bedrock in locations where sufficient soil thickness is present.

The monitoring requirement proposed in the permit is the visual inspection of water features within the cemetery rather than collection and chemical analysis of groundwater samples. We believe that weekly examination of water features within the cemetery is a reasonable requirement and is a proportionate, but sensible, measure to manage the environmental risks associated with the activity.

Question 8. Requirements preventing operators from using this proposed SRP

Would any of the requirements prevent prospective operators from using the proposed SRP? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Yes – 1
• No – 2
• Don’t know – 1
• No opinion – 1
• Not answered – 12

Summary of comments received

The comments raised concerns about:

• the breakdown of pollutants from burials, and pollutant pathways through fractured rocks
• the additional operational costs for cemeteries that bury directly into bedrock
• a possible perception that an operator will receive a ‘better’ permit by pursuing a bespoke permit rather than this SRP

Our response

This question received a mixed response, possibly because there are limited examples of cemeteries operating under a permit.

Our response to question 6 has already addressed concerns about attenuation of pollutants and pathways through fractured rocks. Our response to question 3 has already addressed comments about a bespoke permit being perceived as ‘better’.

Operational costs of a cemetery are the responsibility of the operator whether they operate under the exemption, SRP, or a bespoke permit.

Question 9. Generic risk assessment for this SRP

Do you agree that the risks associated with the activity are identified by the generic risk assessment? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 1
• Agree – 2
• Neither agree nor disagree – 1
• Disagree – 0
• Strongly disagree – 1
• Not answered – 12

Summary of comments received

One respondent felt that the main risks are catered for in the risk assessment. Another respondent answered ‘agree’ because of the condition prohibiting burials within SPZs.

Concerns were raised about:

• rapid contaminant transport through fractures within the rock
• the condition relating to soil thickness, and whether Environment Agency officers would apply a consistent approach in different parts of England

Our response

We note that the response to this question was generally positive, with the majority of those who answered selecting agree, or strongly agree.

Our response to question 6 has already addressed concerns about attenuation of pollutants and pathways through fractured rocks. Our response to question 7 has already addressed concerns about the condition relating to soil thickness.

We have produced both internal and external guidance for officers and operators to ensure consistency of approach and will update this guidance to reflect changes such as the introduction of SRPs.

Question 10. Measures in this SRP

Do you agree that the measures in this SRP to manage, mitigate or reduce the environmental risks are appropriate? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 1
• Agree – 2
• Neither agree nor disagree – 1
• Disagree – 1
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 12

Summary of comments received

One respondent agreed because of the condition prohibiting burials within SPZs, and another felt that the proposal will serve to enhance existing environmental protections.

Whilst one respondent believed that the SRP manages the environmental risks, they felt that further consideration may be required on a site-by-site basis.

One of the comments raised a concern that the monitoring provisions are reactive rather than preventative, and that the rules do not account for coastal groundwater dynamics (for example, saline intrusion or fluctuating water tables).

Our response

We note that the response to this question was generally positive, with the majority of those who answered selecting agree, or strongly agree.

Whilst the monitoring requirements do not include groundwater sampling and analysis, we believe that weekly examination of water features within the cemetery is a proportionate but sensible measure to manage the environmental risks associated with the activity.

We do not believe that the risks associated with saline intrusion are relevant to or related to the burial of human remains. Whilst fluctuating groundwater levels may be present in coastal areas, the SRP contains a condition requiring a minimum ‘stand-off’ distance of 1 metre between the base of graves and the water table.

These SRPs are covered by a generic risk assessment, although operators will have to collect site-specific information to ensure they can meet these rules. Operators that intend to use these permits will have to demonstrate that they can comply with these rules as part of their planning application. For more information, see the Information to support planning applications section of our online guidance.

Conclusions and next steps

We have reviewed and responded to the comments provided on the proposal to introduce SRPs for cemeteries with burials into bedrock. In considering these responses, we will amend this proposal to include an additional condition. This condition will restrict burials close to swallow holes, sink holes, or similar natural features, which will further reduce the likelihood of pollutant migration via preferential pathways such as natural solution features. We will take this amended proposal forward for final publication.

6. Responses to the proposed SRP for natural burial grounds: questions 11 to 17

This SRP allows new natural burial grounds to bury human remains subject to geographical constraints and monitoring conditions.

Question 11. SRP for natural burial grounds

Do you agree with our proposal to use SRPs for new natural burial grounds?

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 3
• Agree – 4
• Neither agree nor disagree – 1
• Disagree – 1
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 8

Summary of comments received

One respondent said this was a great idea that would help move things forward with more natural burial grounds, leading to an improved and sustainable environment. Another respondent also indicated that this is a positive proposal.

One respondent agreed because of the condition prohibiting burials within SPZ1 and SPZ2.

Concerns were raised about:

• creating a 2-tier structure by only applying rules to new sites
• the admin and cost implications associated with the proposal
• hydro-ecological sensitivities, with a comment recommending site-specific screening to address this

Some comments asked for clarity about:

• the definition of a ‘natural burial ground’
• the origin of the burial density values given in the permit, and whether conditions would be relaxed in the event of exceptional circumstances such as a pandemic

Our response

The response to this question was positive, with the majority of those who answered selecting agree, or strongly agree.

The reason for creating this SRP was because natural burial grounds often incorporate environmental conservation features and may therefore be designated as a Local Nature Reserve (LNR). Those burials grounds would not then benefit from the exemption for low environmental risk cemeteries (or the proposed SRPs described in sections 4 and 5) because of a condition requiring a 50 metre stand-off distance from LNRs. This SRP therefore ensures a level playing field between conventional cemeteries and natural burial grounds.

Whilst there are cost and administrative burdens associated with these SRPs, the only permit currently available for cemeteries or natural burial grounds is a bespoke permit. We can determine SRPs more quickly and cheaply than bespoke permits because we have no decisions to make on site-specific permit conditions. This proposal will therefore save operators time and money. We have answered questions relating to our regulatory approach to new and existing cemeteries in our response to question 1.

There is no legal definition of a ‘natural burial ground’, which are often referred to as ‘green burial sites’ and ‘woodland burial sites’. Instead of creating a definition for natural burial grounds, we have incorporated conditions into the SRP which align with the general principles of natural burial grounds. For example, the SRP restricts the use of embalming fluids, and has reduced burial density requirements. Any prospective burial ground or cemetery may apply for this permit but would need to comply with these conditions. Similarly, natural burial grounds are not restricted to using this SRP, and may still apply for the SRPs described in sections 4 and 5 above, provided they could comply with all the conditions.

Site-specific assessments cannot be undertaken as part of the SRP, as these permits are pre-published and cannot be changed. However, operators will have to collect site-specific information to ensure they can meet the permit conditions, which include stand-off distances from various ecological sites.

It is generally understood that the burial density of natural burial grounds is less than conventional cemeteries, mainly due the presence of additional green spaces or, for example, woodland areas. Early Environment Agency guidance (technical report P223) used the figure of 1,580 burials per hectare to represent natural burial grounds when making generic calculations about the loading of pollutants into groundwater from cemeteries. In 2004, an Environment Agency science report entitled ‘Potential groundwater pollutants from cemeteries’ provided an update to the P223 report which stated in relation to burial densities and green burial sites that “the numbers presented in the previous Agency report remain valid”. The burial density figures from these reports have been used in the development of this SRP.

In the event of exceptional circumstances where there was extreme demand for burial plots (such as a pandemic), the Environment Agency would work with government to develop an appropriate position.

Question 12. Rules and constraints in SRP for natural burial grounds

Do you agree with the rules and constraints in the proposed SRP for natural burial grounds?

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 2
• Agree – 5
• Neither agree nor disagree – 0
• Disagree – 1
• Strongly disagree – 1
• Not answered – 8

Summary of comments received

One respondent agreed because of the condition prohibiting burials within SPZ1 and SPZ2. Another respondent felt that the proposal was a positive step forward for natural burial providers.

Some respondents who answered ‘agree’ asked about:

• the applicability of the cemeteries exemption to natural burial grounds
• existing burial grounds wishing to expand into an area within ancient woodlands
• the condition relating to embalming fluids

Some responses raised concerns about:

• the rules and constraints being too generic, and that the rules do not appear to set a clear burial rate limit
• the additional burden placed on operators when their sites are designated as a LNR or a protected site

Two comments reiterated previous points relating to the origin of the burial density figures and the burden of monitoring requirements.

Our response

The response to this question was positive, with the majority of those who answered selecting agree, or strongly agree.

This SRP does set a clear burial rate limit, which is set out in table 2.1 of the permit. Whilst the conditions within the SRP are not site-specific, they do restrict the activity in the most sensitive areas such as within SPZ1, and within 250 metres of any well, spring or borehole that is used to supply water for domestic drinking or food production purposes.

Natural burial grounds can be exempt from the requirement to have a permit, if they can meet all the conditions set out in the exemption for low-environmental-risk cemeteries. This SRP acknowledges that natural burial grounds may not be eligible for the exemption because they are sometimes designated as a LNR. Proposals to develop natural burial grounds within ancient woodlands are not covered within these standard rules, and therefore such proposals would have to operate under a bespoke permit.

The designation of LNRs is a responsibility of Local Authorities, and the designation of protected sites (such as a Site of Special Scientific Interest) is the responsibility of Natural England or the Secretary of State with advice from Natural England. We are therefore unable to change the process of how those designations are made, but will protect relevant designated sites where a permitted activity has the potential to cause harm to those receptors.

We have addressed all comments regarding the embalming fluid condition under our response to question 16. Our response to question 11 addresses comments about burial densities, and the response to question 7 addresses the potential burden of monitoring requirements.

Question 13. Requirements preventing operators from using this SRP

Would any of the requirements prevent prospective operators from using the proposed SRP?

Summary of responses to question

• Yes – 2
• No – 5
• Don’t know – 1
• No opinion – 1
• Not answered – 8

Summary of comments received

One respondent said this proposal will encourage ‘ecological, naturally driven burial grounds’, and would lead to cost savings.

Some other comments raised concerns about:

• sites with very few annual burials that might be unfairly impacted by the cost of a permit
• the difference between the annual burial rates allowed in this SRP when compared to the other SRPs
• how the embalming fluid condition might create an unfair playing field between conventional cemeteries and natural burial grounds
• how the operation of their site might change as a result of the requirements in this permit

Our response

We note the response generally suggests that conditions in the permit would not stop operators from applying for, or complying with, the permit.

Where the burial rate at a natural burial ground is low, it may well be exempt from the requirement to have a permit. The site would have to meet all the conditions set out in the exemption for low-environmental-risk cemeteries to be exempt. New cemeteries or new natural burial grounds only need a permit where they cannot meet this exemption.

The burial rates in this SRP are greater than the burial rates in the permit covered in section 4 above because the burial density is far lower. This means the amount of pollutants entering groundwater (and therefore the risk posed to groundwater) from burials allowed in this SRP is comparable to that of the permit covered in section 4. We have addressed all comments regarding the embalming fluid condition in our response to question 16.

If a cemetery or natural burial ground has been in operation since before 2 October 2023, it is an existing cemetery and does not need to operate under a permit or comply with the exemption. See the response to question 1 for more information. If a cemetery or natural burial ground already operates under a bespoke permit, the conditions of that permit will not change as a result of the development of this SRP.

Question 14. Generic risk assessment for this SRP

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

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 2
• Agree – 4
• Neither agree nor disagree – 3
• Disagree – 0
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 8

Summary of comments received

One respondent thought all major issues are covered by the generic risk assessment. Another respondent answered ‘agree’ because of the condition prohibiting burials within SPZ1 and SPZ2.

Some comments raised concerns about:

• how the generic risk assessment does not address site-specific risks
• how pollution risks for new sites can be addressed through the planning application process, but existing sites aren’t reviewed and so are not covered by this risk assessment

Some respondents asked for clarity on:

• how the stand-off distances from receptors such as watercourses have been derived
• the definition of a hazardous substance

Our response

The response to this question was very positive, with the majority of those who answered selecting agree, or strongly agree.

For our response to concerns about site-specific risks, see question 12. We have addressed comments about hazardous substances and the derivation of stand-off distances in our responses to questions 4 and 5 respectively.

We have set out our expectations on what cemetery operators should submit in support of their planning application in Information to support planning applications. For the background to our regulatory approach to new and existing cemeteries, see our response to question 1.

Question 15. Measures in this SRP

Do you agree that the measures in this SRP to manage, mitigate or reduce the environmental risks are appropriate?

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 2
• Agree – 5
• Neither agree nor disagree – 0
• Disagree – 2
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 8

Summary of comments received

A respondent who strongly agreed said this may open the door to review of the exemption conditions for natural burial grounds. Two respondents answered ‘agree’ due to measures protecting water sources (for example the conditions restricting burials in SPZ1 and SPZ2).

Respondents who answered ‘disagree’ raised concerns about:

• the SRPs relying too heavily of generic assessments of risk
• the limitations of distinguishing between ‘new’ and ‘existing’ cemeteries or natural burial grounds

One respondent answered ‘agree’ but did raise questions about the embalming fluid condition.

Our response

We note that the response to this question was positive, with the majority of those who answered selecting agree, or strongly agree.

Natural burial grounds can be exempt from the requirement to have a permit, if they can meet all the conditions set out in the exemption for low-environmental-risk cemeteries. This proposed SRP acknowledges that natural burial grounds may not be eligible for the exemption because they are sometimes designated as a LNR.

For our response to concerns about site-specific risks, see question 12. See the response to question 1 for information on our regulatory approach to ‘new’ and ‘existing’ cemeteries or natural burial grounds.

We have addressed all comments regarding the embalming fluid condition in our response to question 16.

Question 16. Restriction of embalming fluids

Do you agree with the proposal to restrict the use of embalming fluid in this SRP?

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 4
• Agree – 2
• Neither agree nor disagree – 3
• Disagree – 0
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 8

Summary of comments received

Comments on the embalming fluid condition covered a number of themes. Respondents were supportive of the principle of this condition but pointed out that:

• the other SRPs did not contain the embalming fluid condition but are still assessed as low risk in the generic risk assessment
• there could be circumstances where the use of embalming fluid is unavoidable
• operators would have to rely on information provided by funeral directors as to whether bodies had been embalmed
• the restriction should also apply to coffins containing formaldehyde as a binding agent

Our response

We note that the response to this question was very positive. The majority of those who answered selected agree or strongly agree, and no respondents selected disagree or strongly disagree.

Whilst the other SRPs do not have this condition, this proposal is relaxing the stand-off distance from non-water-based LNRs and allows higher burial rates (albeit at lower burial densities). This condition provides additional assurance that such receptors will not be put at harm from burials at these sites.

Further, we can only create SRPs where the risks posed by an activity are well understood. In this instance, we understand that natural burial grounds do not usually allow the burial of human remains that have been treated with embalming fluid. This condition therefore ensures that the activity is well constrained and that the risks posed by the activity are well understood by us (the regulator). It is common practice for natural burial grounds to restrict the use of embalming fluid, and therefore this proposal aligns with such practice.

We acknowledge the point that there could be exceptional circumstances where the use of embalming fluid is unforeseeable and unavoidable. For example, where someone has died abroad and this delays burial timelines meaning embalming is required. This could cause distress and disappointment where the deceased was intended to be buried in a natural burial ground operating under this permit. The environmental risk posed by individual use of embalming is likely to be very low, and so the condition can be changed to allow regulatory discretion in exceptional circumstances. We will update the wording of the condition to include the phrase “unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Environment Agency”.

To be compliant with this condition, operators of natural burial grounds would have to take necessary measures to ensure all human remains buried at their site are not treated with embalming fluid, for example by requesting prior confirmation from funeral providers. These measures should be incorporated into their written management system.

Whilst we understand that some coffins may contain formaldehyde, we recognise that most natural burial grounds already require environmentally friendly coffins or burial shrouds to be used. We will not therefore add a condition to restrict the use of conventional coffins within this permit but will consider this question again during future permit reviews.

Question 17. Will the permit be beneficial

To what extent do you agree that natural burial grounds will benefit from this SRP?

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 2
• Agree – 1
• Neither agree nor disagree – 3
• Disagree – 1
• Strongly disagree – 1
• Not answered – 9

Summary of comments received

One positive comment said that this would allow natural burial grounds to progress without the need to operate under a bespoke permit.

A comment from the respondent who answered ‘disagree’ thought the SRPs overlooked site-specific considerations. The respondent who answered ‘strongly disagree’ thought that the rules in these permits are similar to what is required as part of a planning application, so not beneficial.

Our response

We note that the response to this question was mixed, with the most common answer being ‘neither agree nor disagree’.

See the response to question 12 which addresses concerns about site-specific risks.

The Environment Agency regulates activities which might lead to the input of pollutants into groundwater. This includes cemeteries and natural burial grounds. Currently, if an operator cannot meet the exemption for low-environmental-risk cemeteries, they must apply for a bespoke permit. These SRPs are an alternative to a bespoke permit and can be determined more quickly and cheaply than bespoke permits because we have no decisions to make on site-specific permit conditions. This proposal will therefore save operators time and money. See Protecting groundwater from human burials for guidance on the information to submit in support of a planning application. It is worth us pointing out that planning applications also cover broader subject matters, such as highways, noise and so on.

Conclusions and next steps

We have reviewed and responded to the comments provided on the proposal to introduce SRPs for natural burial grounds.

In particular, we have clarified that there is no legal definition of natural burial ground, and so we have incorporated conditions into the SRP which align with the general principles of natural burial grounds. Any prospective burial ground or cemetery may apply for this permit but would need to comply with these conditions. Similarly, natural burial grounds are not restricted to using this SRP and may still apply for the permits described in sections 4 and 5 above, provided they could comply with all the conditions.

We have acknowledged the point that there could be exceptional circumstances where the use of embalming fluid is unforeseeable and unavoidable. The environmental risk posed by individual use of embalming is likely to be very low, and so the embalming fluid condition can be changed to allow regulatory discretion in exceptional circumstances. We will take this amended proposal forward for final publication.

7. Responses to the proposed SRP for CL-GSHC  systems: questions 18 to 23

This SRP allows the operation of CL-GSHC systems subject to geographical constraints and monitoring conditions.

Question 18. SRP for CL-GSHC systems

Do you agree with our proposal to use SRPs for CL-GSHC systems?

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 3
• Agree – 5
• Neither agree nor disagree – 0
• Disagree – 0
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 9

Summary of comments received

All respondents who answered this question either selected ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ to the proposal to use SRPs for CL-GSHC systems.

In answering this question, respondents made the following positive comments about the SRP:

• it will protect abstractions
• it will strike the right balance between reducing regulatory burden and managing environmental risk, and support growth of the sector
• it will improve permit determination timescales

One respondent answered ‘agree’ on the condition that the rules are tightly defined and grounded in robust hydrogeological screening.

Other comments:

• questioned whether or not heating systems should require a permit at all
• pointed out that the time and complexity involved in obtaining a bespoke permit is a blocker to the growth of the industry
• questioned why regulatory position statement (RPS) 307 only relates to residential premises

Our response

We are pleased to note that all who responded to this question were broadly supportive, with many acknowledging the financial and time-saving benefits that SRPs will bring the sector, promoting its growth and success.

We are responsible for regulating activities which may result in the input of pollutants into groundwater. In 2023 the EPR was amended to introduce heat as a pollutant, and to create an exemption for CL-GSHC systems. The title of this exemption is ‘Closed-loop ground source heating and cooling systems: England’, which makes it clear that we must regulate heating systems as well as cooling systems. In addition, Defra’s core guidance on groundwater activities refers to ’heating or cooling systems’ when describing how the legislation should be interpreted by regulators.

The cost and time taken to determine a bespoke permit reflects the environmental risk associated with the proposed activity. The introduction of this SRP will bring about a quicker and cheaper alternative to a bespoke permit which should benefit operators.

We developed RPS 307 following the publication of research on Environmental impacts of temperature changes from ground source heating and cooling systems, and discussion with industry. The RPS is currently limited to residential premises only because the nature of their use and energy demand is likely to pose a low risk to sensitive environmental receptors. This is less certain for other uses. If new relevant research and data become available, we will review our regulatory approach accordingly.

For more information on our regulatory approach to CL-GSHC systems, please see Closed loop ground source heating and cooling systems: when you need a permit.

Question 19. Rules and constraints in SRP for CL-GSHC systems

Do you agree with the rules and constraints in the proposed SRP for CL-GSHC systems? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 1
• Agree –3
• Neither agree nor disagree – 2
• Disagree – 2
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 9

Summary of comments received

One respondent agreed with the rules provided that they protect sensitive hydrogeological settings. They also agreed that CL-GSHC systems have a relatively low environmental risk when sealed pipework and non-hazardous thermal transfer fluid (TTF) is used.

There were mixed views on the condition requiring a 50m stand-off distance from any well, spring or borehole used to supply drinking water. One respondent believing it is too restrictive and another believing it is not restrictive enough.

Another respondent felt the 50m stand-off distance from protected sites could lead to small systems needing a bespoke permit. They felt that this was disproportionate and that there could be scope for broadening the SRP to incorporate such systems.

Some of the responses raised concerns about:

• why our regulatory control applies to heating-only systems, and that this is not clear in GOV.UK guidance
• the temperature and flow monitoring of TTF, and whether it was necessary for heating-only systems
• the condition restricting hazardous substances in TTF, and that this information is commercially sensitive

One respondent suggested changes to the wording of the exemption conditions.

Our response

We are pleased to see that the responses were largely supportive of the rules and constraints within the SRP.

We have addressed the questions on our regulatory control of heating-only systems in our response to question 18. We note the feedback about the clarity of GOV.UK guidance and will work to improve this in the future.

The temperature and flow monitoring of TTF is required to ensure compliance with the heat input condition. We acknowledge that heating-only systems will always be compliant with this condition, meaning that this monitoring is not necessary. We will update the SRP to make it clear that this monitoring condition will not apply to heating-only systems.

We have a duty to prevent the input of hazardous substances into groundwater. Whilst these systems are sealed, the operation of CL-GSHC systems in sensitive locations still presents a risk to the environment if TTF leaks. Whilst we understand that the composition of TTF is commercially sensitive, we expect operators to provide adequate information to us, when submitting their proposals. This is set out clearly in position statement A5 of the Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection which states:

The Environment Agency expects developers and operators to provide adequate information to statutory bodies, including the Environment Agency, when submitting their proposals. This is so that the potential impact on groundwater resources and quality can be adequately assessed. In particular, where new techniques, operations, products or substances are involved, developers or operators should be prepared to supply specific relevant data to allow the risk to groundwater to be assessed.

We have measures in place to protect commercially sensitive information, and in this instance, we only require a list of substances in the TTF not their concentrations or relative proportions. We are already in ongoing engagement with some manufacturers of TTF to help determine if their products contain hazardous substances.

The distances set out in the SRP are reasonable and appropriate stand-off distances designed to protect environmental receptors and represent good practice. Public drinking water supply sources and protected sites are very sensitive groundwater receptors. We believe it is reasonable to require a site-specific groundwater risk assessment where CL-GSHC systems are proposed within 50m of these receptors. These systems would therefore have to operate under a bespoke permit. Systems outside these stand-off distances are protected by the SRP through the following mitigation measures:

• the system must be fully sealed and with loops fixed in place using grout of specified properties
• TTF must not contain any hazardous substances
• all equipment installed must comply with relevant industry standards

We acknowledge that some small systems might fall outside the scope of the SRP due to the stand-off distances and will review these scenarios with industry to determine whether alternative SRPs would be appropriate.

We note the comments suggesting changes to the exemption criteria, however we do not currently have the powers to change the wording of exemptions, and the purpose of this consultation is to address proposed SRPs.

Question 20. Requirements preventing prospective operators from using this SRP

Would any of the requirements prevent prospective operators from using the proposed standard rules? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Yes – 2
• No – 1
• Don’t know – 4
• No opinion – 1
• Not answered – 9

Summary of comments received

The responses to this question repeated similar themes to previous responses. They included concerns that:

• the temperature and flow monitoring of TTF is disproportionate if applied to heating-only systems
• the condition restricting hazardous substances in TTF may prevent the uptake of the SRP
• the 50m stand-off distances from wells, springs and boreholes used for drinking water is too restrictive

One response also pointed out that there is no methodology on how to calculate the net heat input from systems. Without a methodology or guidance, this condition will deter applicants from applying for this SRP.

Our response

We note there was a mixed response to this question.

We have addressed the questions on our regulatory control of heating-only systems in our response to question 18. Similarly, we have addressed the questions on temperature and flow monitoring of TTF for heating-only systems in our response to question 19. This response also addressed the condition restricting hazardous substances in TTFs and the stand-off distances from sensitive receptors.

All questions and comments relating to the heat input condition have been addressed in our response to question 23.

Question 21. Generic risk assessment (GRA) for this SRP

Do you agree that the risks associated with the activity are identified by the generic risk assessment? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 1
• Agree – 7
• Neither agree nor disagree – 0
• Disagree – 0
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 9

Summary of comments received

One respondent agreed that the GRA addresses abstraction sensitivities.

Other responses questioned why heating-only systems needed to be regulated by a permit. They believed either the exemption could be changed to cover all heating-only systems, or that these systems should not need to comply with the heat input condition in the SRP.

Our response

We are pleased to note that all respondents who answered the question agreed or strongly agreed that the risks have been identified by the GRA.

We have addressed the questions on our regulatory control of heating-only systems in our response to question 18. Where heating-only systems fail to comply with the exemption criteria they must apply for a permit. This proposed SRP is a cheaper and faster permit alternative to a bespoke permit, which is currently the only option available. We do not currently have the powers to change the wording of exemptions, and the purpose of this consultation is to address proposed SRPs.

We agree that heating-only systems will always be compliant with the heat input condition. As per our response to question 19, we will update the SRP to make it clear that the monitoring associated with that condition (temperature and flow) will not apply to heating-only systems.

Question 22. Measures in this SRP

Do you agree that the measures under this SRP to manage, mitigate or reduce the environmental risks are appropriate? Please provide details to explain your answer.

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 1
• Agree – 6
• Neither agree nor disagree – 0
• Disagree – 1
• Strongly disagree – 0
• Not answered – 9

Summary of comments received

Some responses covered previous topics such as:

• our regulation of heating-heating only systems
• the stand-off distance from drinking water supplies

Some positive comments agreed with:

• the condition requiring compliance with relevant standards
• the condition requiring pressure monitoring of TTF for leak detection purposes, even recommending these should be mandatory for exempt systems (part of the exemption conditions)
• the requirements to keep records and report monitoring data

One respondent asked for clarity on the definition of a hazardous substance and whether common components of TTF were non-hazardous. We also received feedback outside the formal consultation, regarding the integrity of the borehole grouting and well-head, and associated environmental risks to water quality and resource.

Our response

We are pleased that all, except one, respondents agree that the measures in the SRPs manage, mitigate or reduce the environmental risk.

We have addressed the questions on our regulatory control of heating-only systems in our response to questions 18 and 21. Our response to question 19 addresses the condition relating to the stand-off distances from sensitive receptors.

We are pleased there is support on the requirement for pressure monitoring, however we do not currently have the powers to change the wording of exemptions, and the purpose of this consultation is to address proposed SRPs.

Hazardous substances are defined as substances that are toxic, persistent, and liable to bio-accumulate, or that give rise to an equivalent level of concern. Non-hazardous pollutants are defined as any pollutant other than a hazardous substance. We have published a non-exhaustive list of pollutants which confirms whether they are a hazardous substance or a non-hazardous pollutant. See the 2025 07 17 Confirmed hazardous substances list for more information.

This list confirms that ethylene glycol and propylene glycol are non-hazardous pollutants. However, we are aware that TTFs often contain biocides and corrosion inhibitors as additives. To be eligible for the SRP such additives must not be hazardous substances. We are already in ongoing engagement with some manufacturers of TTF to help determine if their products contain hazardous substances. See our response to question 19 for more information on this subject.

We are already in ongoing engagement with the authors of the relevant industry standards, to ensure they mitigate the environmental risks relating to borehole integrity.

Question 23. Heat limit condition

Do you agree with the proposal to limit the net heat energy input into the environment (0.5 kWh per m³ per year) in these standard rules (as described in section 3.2.2 of the consultation document)?

This said:

An annual ‘net heat energy input’  limit is proposed. The limit is proportionate to the size of installation, meaning that larger heat inputs are allowed when spread over a larger volume of aquifer. This condition (0.5 kilowatt hours per cubic metre of aquifer per year) will reduce the risk of impact from heat plumes within groundwater.

The figure has been considered on the basis of a system with typical installation details with a maximum power output of 100kW operating for three months of the year. This has drawn upon research and analysis work published in 2024 on Environmental impacts of temperature changes from ground source heating and cooling systems, as well as advice from industry stakeholders.

Summary of responses to question

• Strongly agree – 2
• Agree – 3
• Neither agree nor disagree – 2
• Disagree – 0
• Strongly disagree – 1
• Not answered – 9

Summary of comments received

Three of the respondents welcomed the Environment Agency’s early discussion with industry on this subject prior to the consultation. They believed this limit strikes a sensible balance between environmental risk and regulatory burden. Two of these did however suggest that the figure should be calculated relative to the bore-field rather than the aquifer.

One respondent agreed with the condition because it protects drinking water abstractions.

One respondent, who strongly disagreed, raised technical and detailed questions particularly around how the ‘aquifer volume’ is determined and how this limit would be applied in practice. They believed the heat per unit volume limit takes no account of the overall discharge of heat to the ground. They called for clear guidance (with examples) as to how this limit should be calculated. They also asked for information on how it was derived.

One respondent repeated previous comments regarding the application of this condition to heating-only systems.

Our response

We are pleased to see that most respondents who answered this question agreed with the principle of this condition.

To protect sensitive groundwater dependent receptors located close to these systems, we proposed a condition limiting the net heat input into groundwater. The figure has been considered on the basis of a system with typical installation details with a maximum power output of 100kW operating for 3 months of the year. This has drawn upon research and analysis work published in 2024 on environmental impacts of temperature changes from ground source heating and cooling systems, as well as advice from industry stakeholders.

We acknowledge further detail and guidance is required to explain how this calculation should be done. This work will be published alongside the final publication of the SRP. We will continue to work with industry on this subject, for example on the wording of the condition and whether it should be relative to the bore-field or aquifer.

As per our response to question 19, heating-only systems will always be compliant with this condition.

Conclusions and next steps

We have reviewed and responded to the comments provided on the proposal to introduce SRPs for CL-GSHC systems. In considering these responses, we will take the following actions prior to final publication of the SRP:

• amend the condition relating to the temperature and flow monitoring of TTF to make it clear that it does not apply to heating-only systems
• develop guidance on the heat input condition, and work with industry to improve the wording of that condition
• improve GOV.UK guidance to make it clearer, for example, clarifying how it applies to heating-only systems

8. General questions: 24 to 25

Question 24. Economic impacts

Are there any potential economic impacts, either positive or negative, that the introduction of the SRPs could have on your business?

Summary of responses to question

• Yes – 9
• No – 2
• Don’t know – 2
• No opinion – 2
• Not answered – 2

Summary of comments received on the SRPs for cemeteries and natural burial grounds

Positive comments indicated that the SRP would or may:

• be easier to follow
• demonstrate to their customers that they uphold the highest standard of environmental protection
• create the opportunity to revisit sites that had previously been ruled out for cemetery developments
• increase the volume of sites being taken forward

Some comments raised concerns that:

• both the cost of the permit, and the annual subsistence fee would be a burden for their new cemetery development
• the proposal unfairly disadvantages new operators when compared to existing cemeteries, and that there are already large barriers to new entrants coming into the sector
• smaller cemeteries or natural burial grounds with low burial rates could be financially impacted by the proposal
• the weekly testing would result in increased costs for operators
• the proposal to restrict the use of embalming fluid in one of the SRPs could impact those in the embalming industry and the choice offered to the bereaved

Our response on the SRPs for cemeteries and natural burial grounds

We are pleased that several respondents indicated that the proposed SRPs would have a positive impact on the sector.

Whilst we understand that the costs of the SRPs may be a burden to new cemetery developments, these costs are far lower than the cost of a bespoke permit, which is currently the only option available for new cemetery developments which cannot meet the conditions of the exemption. Our response to question 1 explains the reasoning behind our regulatory approach to existing and new cemeteries, and why they differ.

Smaller cemeteries or natural burial grounds with low burial rates are likely to benefit from the exemption for low environmental risk cemeteries and would therefore not be impacted by the costs of applying for a permit. Where they cannot meet the exemption, for example due to their location in a sensitive environmental setting, the cost of the permit reflects the additional regulatory control that is necessary to ensure the water environment is protected.

The weekly monitoring proposed in the permits is the visual examination of water features within the cemetery rather than collection and chemical analysis of water samples. We believe this is a reasonable requirement that is a proportionate, but sensible measure to manage the environmental risks associated with the activity. We have addressed queries about the embalming fluid condition in our response to question 16. We do not believe this would have a significant impact upon the embalming industry, given that it is already common practice for natural burials grounds not to accept embalmed bodies.

Summary of comments received on the SRP for CL-GSHC systems

Three respondents felt that the introduction of the SRP will have a positive impact on business in the heat pump sector. They indicated that the SRP was essential given the delays associated with the determination timescales of bespoke permits.

One comment said that the condition restricting the use of closed-loop systems within 50m of a public water supply could have a negative effect on small CL-GSHC systems. Another point raised was that there would be further benefit if the SRP had covered systems with a maximum power output of less than 100kW which are at least 20 metres from a protected site or ancient woodland.

Our response on the SRP for CL-GSHC systems

We are pleased that respondents generally felt that the SRP would have a positive impact on the heat pump sector.

Drinking water supply sources and protected sites are very sensitive receptors. We believe it is reasonable to require a site-specific groundwater risk assessment where CL-GSHC systems are proposed within 50m of these receptors. These systems would therefore have to operate under a bespoke permit. In relation to protected sites, we acknowledge that some small systems might fall outside the scope of the SRP due to the stand-off distances and will review these scenarios with industry to determine whether alternative SRPs would be appropriate.

Question 25. Further comments

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

Summary of comments received on the SRPs for cemeteries and natural burial grounds

One respondent was keen to understand how the Environment Agency reviews sites and evaluates assessments. They felt that there should be more information on how the stand-off distances set out in the permit were derived. They also said that this consultation shows positive progress, particularly in relation to natural burial grounds.

Another respondent believed that creating SRPs will increase administrative burden without any benefit. They felt that Biodiversity Net Gain requirements set out through the planning process already cover pollution risks. They also reiterated their concerns regarding the difference in regulatory approach between new and existing cemeteries, which in their view put new developments at a commercial disadvantage. They suggested the application of these rules should be achieved with a Statutory Instrument and should be applied to all cemeteries.

The environmental dangers associated with the use of embalming fluids within the burial process were pointed out in another response. The respondent felt it was an issue that should be explored in greater depth.

Whilst a separate issue, 2 respondents highlighted concerns about the environmental impacts of the scattering of ashes at crematoria. They point out that the Law Commission is currently looking at the responsibilities of crematoria and funeral directors where ashes have not been collected by family members, and it’s possible that future requirements will lead to an increased amount of scattering at crematoria due to a significant backlog of unclaimed ashes.

Our response on the SRPs for cemeteries and natural burial grounds

Whilst the application forms for these SRPs have not yet been finalised, they are likely to include questions asking the operator for confirmation they can meet the conditions within the permit. For example, questions confirming that burials will not occur inside certain stand-off distances from protected sites. For bespoke permits, we require the operator to submit a groundwater risk assessment. We evaluate these assessments against our guidance ‘Cemeteries and burials: groundwater risk assessments’ and use these to develop conditions and controls that need to be written into the permit. We have addressed comments about the derivation of stand-off distances in our response to question 5.

We note the comment in relation to the practice of embalming bodies. We have proposed a restriction on the burial of bodies treated with embalming fluid in one of these SRPs and have addressed comments on that subject in our response to question 16.

We do not believe that Biodiversity Net Gain requirements sufficiently cover pollution risks posed to groundwater. Further, we have a duty to regulate groundwater activities (which includes the burial of human remains) regardless of whether Local Planning Authorities place conditions on planning permissions relating to Biodiversity Net Gain. We have addressed comments relating to our regulatory approach to existing and new cemeteries, and why they differ, in our response to question 1. We (Environment Agency) do not have the power to use Statutory Instruments. Defra amended the EPR in 2023 using a Statutory Instrument to create an exemption for low environmental risk cemeteries. New cemetery developments that cannot meet the exemption criteria must operate under a permit, and this consultation proposes the development of SRPs for eligible operators.

These SRPs do not relate to the scattering of ashes. However, we are aware of the point raised by respondents and intend to update our GOV.UK guidance in 2026 to provide more guidance on the scattering of ashes in order to protect the water environment.

Summary of comments received on the SRP for CL-GSHC systems

There was only one response, which indicated that the additional cost of permitting could impact and derail a programme of large projects designed to reduce their carbon emissions and achieve net zero targets by 2030. The response repeated previous suggestions to amend the SRP or exemption for systems close to protected sites. They also questioned whether it is necessary for heating-only systems to operate under a permit.

Our response on the SRP for CL-GSHC systems

The proposed SRP is intended to cover circumstances where a system cannot meet the exemption criteria due to its proximity to a protected site. However, we believe it is reasonable to require site-specific groundwater risk assessments for systems closer than 50m to these receptors. In these instances, an operator would therefore have to apply for a bespoke permit.

We acknowledge that some small systems might fall outside the scope of the SRP due to the stand-off distances and will review these scenarios with industry to determine whether alternative SRPs would be appropriate. We have already addressed comments relating to regulatory control of heating-only systems in our response to question 18.

9. Next steps

Generally, the responses to the consultation support our proposal to produce these SRPs for the burial of human remains, and CL-GSHC systems. We will now review and update the draft permits and generic risk assessments to produce final versions. We plan to publish them on GOV.UK by the end of June 2026.

If you wish to follow up on your responses or have questions relating to this consultation response document, please email national.groundwater@environment-agency.gov.uk and include ‘Standard rules consultation number 30’ in the subject.