Committee calls for clear direction on Oldbury and Wylfa, and a “one-stop shop” to finally overcome excessive cost and delays in deployment of nuclear energy

• GB Energy-Nuclear should confirm plans for Oldbury and Wylfa sites without further delay 

• New planning policy statement does not yet overcome the issues holding back UK's much-needed nuclear energy development  

In a report today the Commons Energy Security and Net Zero Committee says new planning guidance for building Britain's future nuclear energy generation brings a welcome ‘presumption of consent' for low-carbon generation across a range of nuclear technologies.  

But the UK's move into unprecedented territory of private development of new nuclear sites creates new challenges. The Committee is concerned that the “exhaustive” drafting of the criteria in EN‑7, intended to introduce the flexibility to consider a wide range of factors towards approval, may in fact just duplicate issues also addressed by specialist regulators and create more uncertainty, delay and cost.   

It concludes that new policy statement EN-7 “fails to present a truly joined-up approach across planning, safety, and environmental regulation” and so risks undermining its own purpose: to provide a definitive and coherent framework for decision-making.  Commercial developers, facing a front-loaded application system and potential review both by multiple regulators and in Court, may be driven to “gold plate” applications with excessive detail.  

This risks discouraging a more efficient ‘fleet‑based' deployment strategy that can capture economies of scale and standardisation. EN‑7 should be amended to make clearer that planning examinations should not replicate tests from other regulatory regimes, and detailed guidance should be published to help applicants understand what evidence is needed. 

The Committee reiterates concerns in its July Report Gridlock or Growth about the “fundamental tension” between Government's stated preference for a market-led approach to energy, and the real necessity of state intervention in siting gigawatt-scale nuclear plants.  

It says Government must reflect this reality in the guidance and support for bidders, being more explicit about what nuclear technologies it wants deployed and where. The success of EN-7 will depend significantly on how effectively GB Energy-Nuclear (GBE‑N) “acts as both champion and investor.” But GBE‑N itself owns two of the most important sites - Oldbury and Wylfa - and hasn't yet confirmed its own deployment plans there.  

Bill Esterson MP, Chair of the Committee, said: “The draft EN-7 makes a strong case for new nuclear, but GB Energy-Nuclear need to make clear their plans for flagship sites at Oldbury and Wylfa.  These sites have the potential to truly accelerate new nuclear in the UK.  

The Committee welcomes the case for nuclear power represented in EN-7 but it's not yet clear that Government and GB Energy-Nuclear are equipped to translate this framework into commercial deployment of nuclear generation technologies at the scale and pace that we need. An exhaustive list of assessment criteria, intended to allow planners and the Secretary of State to consider a wide range diverse factors, risks ending up as an albatross around the neck of applicants.   

“The main issue and blocker is that regulation is still fundamentally fragmented and duplicated across the planning landscape. Unfortunately, even with the best will in the world, EN-7 will do nothing to tackle this unless the independent Regulatory Taskforce can live up to its promise to bring forward proposals for radical change, and the Government can quickly put them into practice. The Taskforce's upcoming report should set out how to bring planning, safety, and environmental regulation together into a “one stop shop” while maintaining high standards.” 

The Committee says improvements for future EN-7 and accompanying guidance should set expectations for how nuclear developers can deliver lasting economic value to host communities, including doing more to encourage joint consent for public infrastructure like roads and railways, and exploring fiscal measures like full business rate retention for local authorities. These approaches may prove more adaptable to SMRs, with their smaller geographic and economic footprint, but which may also offer fewer local jobs and benefits than in previous generations./ENDS