Major planning reform in nuclear on the horizon – the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce Interim Report
The Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce (the Taskforce) recently published its Interim Report (the Report), which provides a comprehensive review of the UK’s nuclear regulatory landscape, and calls on the UK government to provide a strategic steer to duty holders and regulators to promote reforms. We have published a separate article discussing the Report more generally, which you can access here. We now take a deep dive in the planning-related findings of the Report, highlighting areas of concern and potential reform.
The Report follows recent sector developments such as the announcement of the UK’s first Small Modular Reactor; the government’s announcement of a record £2.5 billion investment in fusion energy, including support for a prototype fusion energy plant; as well as the government’s multi-billion-pound investment in the Sizewell C project. These reflect the global trend in resurgence of nuclear technology, as it is increasingly seen as a critical element of both the low carbon energy mix and of national security.
Nuclear projects are set to benefit from the efforts of the government to speed up delivery of major national projects, such as the recent announcement of plans for a second planning and infrastructure bill which would limit the number of judicial reviews to one per project, with narrower criteria for standing. Below we detail the planning-related findings of the Report.
1. Proportionality in Environmental Assessments
The Report finds that environmental assessments, such as the Habitats Regulations Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessments often lack proportionality. These processes can impose high-cost mitigation measures without clear environmental benefits, focusing on protecting current habitats rather than supporting broader nature recovery or recognising the long-term benefits of nuclear as a low-carbon energy source. The system’s rigidity can force developers to stick with less optimal solutions to avoid lengthy reapproval, hindering both project delivery and environmental outcomes.
2. Complexity of the Regulatory and Planning Landscape
The regulatory and planning environment is described as overly complex and duplicative, with multiple regulators and overlapping requirements. This complexity leads to repeated consultations, delays, increased costs, and uncertainty for both established operators and new entrants. Inconsistencies between and within regulatory bodies further complicate compliance and project management.
3. Challenges with the Planning Regime
The current planning regime, especially the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project process, is not well-suited to new nuclear technologies like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Advanced Modular Reactors. Each project is treated individually, requiring separate approvals even for similar designs, and outdated criteria – such as those for semi-urban population density – limit the availability of suitable sites. These factors contribute to delays and inefficiencies.
4. International Harmonisation
The Report notes missed opportunities for international harmonisation in nuclear planning and regulation. Each national regulator’s unique approach results in duplicated effort and higher costs for developers seeking multi-jurisdictional approvals. Greater recognition of trusted international regulatory decisions could streamline processes and facilitate the adoption of proven technologies.
5. Insufficient Understanding of the Cost of Delays
The Report highlights that the indirect costs of regulatory and planning delays – financial, labour, and material – are often underestimated in decision-making. A better understanding and quantification of these costs could support more proportionate and timely regulatory interventions, aiding efficient project delivery.
Analysis & Further Consideration
The Taskforce’s clear intent is to streamline the nuclear planning process while retaining the commitment to nuclear safety, security, safeguards and environmental protection. Streamlining and simplifying the consenting process is essential to enable the deployment of novel technologies and allow for arrangements such as co-location of nuclear with digital or other infrastructure. While the commitment to make the process less bureaucratic and duplicative will no doubt be welcomed by industry stakeholders, it is important to consider that the emergence of new technologies will pose new planning and safety challenges which must be addressed with a clear framework. International harmonisation is also especially important to establish global supply chains, as SMRs are specifically modular to enable standardisation and large-scale production of parts. These developments point at the need of not only streamlining the current framework which enables GW-scale nuclear deployment but also the emerging need for further regulation for new technologies, addressing new risks posed by them.
Conclusion
The Report makes clear that the current planning framework for nuclear projects in the UK is in urgent need of reform. Key issues include a lack of proportionality in environmental assessments, excessive complexity and duplication in regulatory processes, outdated planning criteria, limited international harmonisation, and a failure to account for the true cost of delays. The Taskforce is seeking further input from stakeholders as it develops recommendations aimed at streamlining planning, supporting innovation, and enabling the timely and cost-effective delivery of the UK’s nuclear ambitions. Stakeholders are encouraged to engage with the ongoing consultation to help shape the future of nuclear planning and regulation. For further information and assistance, please contact the CMS team.
Article co-authored by Anna Andrasko, Trainee Solicitor at CMS.
