Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025: Recommendations for Planning

On 24 November 2025, the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce published the final report of its Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025. The report is the culmination of the taskforce’s work to diagnose systemic failures in the UK’s nuclear regulatory framework and propose a “radical reset”. The report argues that the current system has made the UK one of the most expensive places to build nuclear projects. This inefficiency threatens national energy security, Net Zero commitments, and defence capability. The review sets out a blueprint for reform, including significant changes to planning law and policy.

In the recent budget, the Chancellor confirmed that the government accepted the principle of all the recommendations set out in the report and that a full implementation plan would be presented within three months.

Chapter 8 of the report outlines the suggested reforms to the planning system to better enable new nuclear development.

Streamlining the DCO regime

The report suggests that the approval timelines under the current system are too long and that the treatment of each project as novel adds unnecessary complexity.

It highlights that the Development Consent Order (DCO) process often takes several years, with Sizewell C taking eight years from its first consultation to application submission. Key causes for these delays include lengthy pre-application stages, excessive documentation, and delays in decision-making.

The report makes several recommendations including having guidance to simplify pre-application requirements, improve proportionality in examinations, and consider project importance at acceptance. It also suggests that Examining Authorities should issue interim recommendation reports before the first examination deadline and that legislative changes should require the Secretary of State to issue a “minded to” letter in the event of a delay, with delays permitted only exceptionally and subject to the approval of the Prime Minister.

The report also advocates the re-introduction of model provisions to provide standard drafting for DCOs which would reduce bespoke drafting and improve consistency.

There is also a recommendation to consider repealing section 150 of the Planning Act 2008 which currently requires consent from certain regulators before their permits can be disapplied in a DCO. This will reinforce the ability of a DCO to act as a “one-stop shop”.

With regards to discharging requirements, the report suggests that a specialist central government unit should be set up to discharge DCO requirements instead of local planning authorities.

Critical National Priority (CNP)

National Planning Policy (NPS) EN-1 and EN-7 both designate low-carbon infrastructure as a CNP. The wording about when CNP status will outweigh unmitigated impacts is currently unclear, stating that “in general” will do so. CNP status is also only available to projects that qualify as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), so those that do not qualify cannot benefit from CNP status.

The report recommends that the CNP “in general” wording is replaced with stronger language, that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is updated to include the CNP presumption and to issue a National Development Management Policy for low carbon infrastructure which would override local policy where there is conflict.

Reforming site selection criteria

NPS EN-7 imposes restrictions on siting nuclear facilities near higher-density populations. The Semi-Urban Population Density criteria (SUPDC) is discussed in our recent article on the new NPS EN-7. It has been argued that this criterion is overly restrictive for new nuclear projects, especially Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs), and is based on outdated modelling. This approach differs from how other countries consider population density as part of the planning process for nuclear.

The report notes flaws in the methodology and recommends revising the SUPC methodology to reflect modern reactor designs and allowing alternative siting routes for light-water reactors, under which the Government would be obliged to confirm that it has no objections in principle to a given proposal in light of the safety standards assured via nuclear site licensing.

Fleet-based approach

Under current policy, each nuclear project is treated as a standalone project. The report recommends amending EN-7 to support a “fleet” approach, allowing replication of processes and economies of scale while retaining site-specific assessment. This would reduce duplication and improve programme certainty, although it would not mandate that projects follow previous designs and would allow for the refusal of consent where adverse effects arise. 

The amendments will include establishing a specific set of steps to mitigate impacts, which would allow for a presumption in favour of granting consent.

Community benefits

Currently, community benefits are not material to planning decisions. This could include financial contributions to bills or local amenity improvements. The report mentions such measures are often confused with section 106 obligations which are separate.

The report recommends legislation to make community benefits a material consideration and guidance to distinguish them from obligations contained in section 106 agreements.

Special Development Orders (SDOs)

For nuclear schemes under 50MW and for other works which fall outside the DCO regime, the report suggests streamlining the Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA) 1990 route via SDOs which would be made by the Secretary of State rather than planning permission which is granted by the local planning authority. It also suggests introducing an automatic grant of permission if no decision is made within eight weeks. This would accelerate deployment of SMRs and AMRs and minimise delays that can arise from seeking a TCPA consent.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss any issues raised in this article, please contact Alex Minhinick, Patrick Robinson or Maelor James.