Select committee: Energy Security and Net Zero Committee

Planning for nuclear energy generation

Closed Opened 17 Jul 2025 Closed 31 Dec 2025 9 recommendations 10 conclusions
Inquiry scope (the committee's words)
The UK is embarking on an ambitious programme of investment in nuclear energy, seeking to reverse decades of declining capacity. The Government is counting on new nuclear to help deliver energy security and decarbonise electricity generation. Announcing funding for the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in June, the Energy Secretary said “ we need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance .” But past promises of a golden age of nuclear energy have so far failed to materialise. A new reactor has not been connected to the grid for 30 years. Nuclear projects have historically faced unique barriers, including complex regulatory and planning processes. The Government now aims to deliver reforms to streamline planning approvals and give greater certainty to developers. Consultation and scrutiny of EN-7 The National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation (EN-7) has been put forward to help guide planners as they seek to make decisions on siting new nuclear infrastructure. Under the Planning Act 2008, a National Policy Statement (NPS) like EN-7 must undergo public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny before it can be formally designated. EN-7 has undergone two rounds of consultation: the first focused on potential changes to the nuclear siting approach; the second introduced the full draft text. The Committee is now beginning the parliamentary scrutiny process, offering MPs the opportunity to hear from industry, experts, and the public to examine the implications of the framework set out in EN-7 in detail. What is EN-7? EN-7 is intended to become the principal guide for decisions on future nuclear power stations in England and Wales. Nuclear infrastructure proposals are currently limited to eight sites in England and Wales. EN-7 replaces this with a criteria-based approach. It is also intended to support development of a broader range of nuclear technologies like Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs), as well as traditional gigawatt-scale plants. The aim is to create a future-proof planning framework that enables a pipeline of new nuclear projects to come forward. Call for Evidence The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee is now inviting written submissions to help assess whether EN-7 provides a coherent and effective framework for enabling the UK’s nuclear ambitions.

Where it stands

The inquiry is closed, opened 17 July 2025.

The committee has published 1 report, most recently 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation on 24 October 2025.

The government's response

Published 19 November 2025. The deadline was 24 December 2025.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government welcomes parts of the Committee's report on EN-7, declines several recommendations including changes to section 2.4 and the Semi-Urban Population Density Criterion mapping, and makes a small number of specific commitments.

  • On regulatory duplication, it says it does "not share this assessment" of industry evidence, because the NSIP regime must judge project viability. On Recommendation 7 it believes the current section 2.4.5 "strikes the appropriate balance".
  • On guidance, it is developing supplementary information for EN-7 and says it "will publish the supplementary information shortly" and update it as lessons are learned.
  • On conditional commencement (Grampian conditions), it judges that explicit support in the NPS "is not required", but "can look at this again during future reviews of EN-7".
  • On the Semi-Urban Population Density Criterion, it proposes to keep the requirement to consult the HSE rather than publish a map, and says EN-7 "will be reviewed at least every 5 years".

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Recommendations and conclusions 19 shown

1: Developer-led low-carbon generation approach lacks assurance without coordinated support and guidance.

Conclusion · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Concluded (the committee's words)
We welcome the introduction of a framework that gives a strong presumption of consent for low-carbon generation and accommodates a broader range of nuclear technologies. However, confidence in a developer- led approach is not yet assured and will only come if DESNZ, GBE-N, and the Planning Inspectorate can collectively provide DCO applicants with the support and guidance they will need to carry out proportionate assessments against the criteria. Without this, there is a risk that the flexibility promised by EN-7 will translate into uncertainty and delay. (Conclusion, Paragraph 16)

Link to this item · Read this item

2: Explicitly state preferred nuclear technologies for deployment and envisaged site locations.

Recommendation · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Recommended (the committee's words)
As we said in our previous Report, Gridlock or Growth, there remains a fundamental tension between the Government’s stated preference for a market-led approach to energy and the trend towards active government management. This is especially apparent in nuclear policy, where siting for gigawatt-scale plants has always required some degree of state backing. Given this reality, the Government needs to be considerably more explicit about what nuclear technologies it wants deployed and where it envisages them being located. (Recommendation, Paragraph 20)

Link to this item · Read this item

3: Publish a comprehensive plan detailing preferred nuclear technologies, timelines, and GBE-N's facilitating role.

Recommendation · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Recommended (the committee's words)
When designating EN-7, the Government should publish a plan with its preferred level and mix of nuclear technologies, indicative deployment timelines, and the role of EN-6 sites potentially suitable for gigawatt-scale plants. Each part of this plan should explain the role of GBE-N in facilitating it. (Recommendation, Paragraph 21)

Link to this item · Read this item

5: Excessive detail in planning applications undermines regulators and hinders fleet-based nuclear deployment.

Conclusion · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Concluded (the committee's words)
If planning examinations stray too far into matters reserved to other regimes this will undermine those regulators. While the exhaustive drafting of the criteria in EN-7 may simply be intended to empower the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State to consider a wide range of relevant factors, this overlooks the pressures on applicants, facing tight project 24 schedules and litigious opponents, which will drive them to “gold plate” their applications with excessive detail to minimise the chance of delay. This could also discourage a fleet-based deployment strategy, where standardisation and replication are key to achieving economies of scale. (Conclusion, Paragraph 29)

Link to this item · Read this item

6: EN-7 fails to provide a joined-up approach across regulatory regimes, delaying progress.

Conclusion · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Concluded (the committee's words)
We are deeply concerned that EN-7 fails to present a truly joined- up approach across planning, safety, and environmental regulation. The absence of robust mechanisms to coordinate these regimes risks undermining the very purpose of an NPS: to provide a definitive and coherent framework for decision-making. If the Government’s objective is to bring forward new projects efficiently, then it must confront the reality that regulatory fragmentation continues to delay progress. (Conclusion, Paragraph 30)

Link to this item · Read this item

7: Strengthen EN-7 to limit Examining Authority information requests to essential planning and environmental impacts.

Recommendation · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Recommended (the committee's words)
Language in section 2.4 presuming the effectiveness of regulatory regimes should be strengthened to state that the Examining Authority should require only such information as is reasonably necessary to assess planning and environmental impacts within the scope of this NPS. (Recommendation, Paragraph 31)

Link to this item · Read this item

8: Explicitly support the use of conditional commencement mechanisms within EN-7 or its guidance.

Conclusion · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Concluded (the committee's words)
We also recommend that EN-7, or the accompanying guidance, explicitly support the use of conditional commencement mechanisms (also known as Grampian conditions). These would allow consent to be granted while restricting the start of specified works until relevant licences or authorisations are secured. (Recommendation, Paragraph 32)

Link to this item · Read this item

9: Make clear to DCO applicants the burden of evidence required against each criterion.

Conclusion · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Concluded (the committee's words)
Guidance must make clear to applicants the burden of evidence required against each criterion. Should a pipeline of DCO applications materialise, this guidance should be regularly updated as lessons are learned, rather than waiting for the next NPS review. (Recommendation, Paragraph 33)

Link to this item · Read this item

10: Set out how a "one stop shop" for civil nuclear permitting could operate in practice.

Recommendation · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce has already called for radical reform to the regulatory landscape. It should set out how a “one stop shop” for permitting civil nuclear could operate in practice and examine whether this could be achieved without compromising safety and environmental standards. The Government should respond swiftly with policy and any legislative changes. (Recommendation, Paragraph 34)

Link to this item · Read this item

11: Government must consider proposals for a diverse fleet of reactors for future energy needs.

Conclusion · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Concluded (the committee's words)
Looking beyond EN-7, the Government will need to start considering proposals for a more diverse fleet of reactors with different benefits and risks. A future NPS might, for certain technologies, need to disapply criteria or introduce entirely new ones. (Conclusion, Paragraph 38) 25

Link to this item · Read this item

12: Signal Government's openness to developing technology-specific criteria in the next nuclear NPS.

Conclusion · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Concluded (the committee's words)
EN-7 should signal the Government’s openness to developing more technology-specific criteria in the next nuclear NPS, and invite ongoing contributions from industry, regulators and independent experts on how siting policy can adapt to a more varied nuclear landscape. (Recommendation, Paragraph 40) Improvements to the draft criteria

Link to this item · Read this item

13: EN-7 lacks detailed consideration of the unique socioeconomic impacts of nuclear developments.

Conclusion · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Concluded (the committee's words)
As the technology-specific NPS for nuclear, the section of EN-7 dealing with socioeconomic impacts is surprisingly quiet about the factors peculiar to nuclear developments: the long construction timelines, the specialised nature of the labour required, and the enduring presence of infrastructure in host communities. These features distinguish nuclear power from other forms of energy generation and warrant more detailed consideration. (Conclusion, Paragraph 49)

Link to this item · Read this item

14: Expand EN-7 on socioeconomic impacts specific to nuclear infrastructure for host communities.

Conclusion · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Concluded (the committee's words)
EN-7 should expand on the socioeconomic impacts specific to nuclear infrastructure. This includes recognising the long construction periods and the potential for the creation of high-quality, long-term jobs. While EN1 generically acknowledges construction impacts and training opportunities, EN-7 and accompanying guidance should go further in setting expectations for how nuclear developers, in particular, can deliver lasting economic value to host communities. (Recommendation, Paragraph 50)

Link to this item · Read this item

15: Investigate creative mechanisms to ensure local economic value from nuclear developments is captured.

Recommendation · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Recommended (the committee's words)
Besides traditional measures like apprenticeship quotas and community benefit funds, the Government should also investigate more creative mechanisms to ensure economic value from nuclear developments is captured locally. This could include doing more to encourage jointly consenting 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. (Recommendation, Paragraph 51)

Link to this item · Read this item

16: Current SUPDC methodology for excluding nuclear reactors lacks transparency and practical decision-making.

Conclusion · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Concluded (the committee's words)
We accept the Government’s view that it is reasonable, in the absence of compelling new safety data, to exclude nuclear reactors from built- up areas. It is rightly the purpose of a national policy statement to provide a consistent definition here. However, the current SUPDC methodology serves neither transparency nor practical decision-making. (Conclusion, Paragraph 60)

Link to this item · Read this item

17: Publish a map of SUPDC test results for England and Wales, replacing H&SE consultation.

Recommendation · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Recommended (the committee's words)
EN-7 should, for now, retain SUPDC to avoid delaying its designation, but should replace the requirement to consult the Health and Safety Executive with a published map showing SUPDC test results for all of England 26 and Wales at a suitable resolution (but ideally on a 100-metre grid at least for the EN-6 sites and any others identified in recent government announcements). (Recommendation, Paragraph 61)

Link to this item · Read this item

18: Commission ONR to develop proposals for a replacement methodology to SUPDC.

Recommendation · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should commission the Office for Nuclear Regulation to develop proposals for a replacement methodology to SUPDC. The ONR could consider the risks posed by different nuclear technologies, recognising that some novel technologies may pose greater or lesser risks of radioactive release. These proposals should include the option of dispensing with SUPDC altogether and replacing its role in the DCO process with the emergency evacuation planning done through the REPPIR framework. (Recommendation, Paragraph 62)

Link to this item · Read this item

19: Restate waste heat consideration requirements in technology-specific terms within EN-7 or guidance.

Recommendation · 4th Report - The new National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation · Addressed to Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

Recommended (the committee's words)
The requirement in the generic EN-1 NPS for applicants to consider the use of waste heat should be restated in more technology-specific terms within EN-7 or the accompanying guidance. This could better support applicants seeking to make productive use of nuclear-generated heat. (Recommendation, Paragraph 66) 27

Link to this item · Read this item

Reports

1 report

Oral evidence sessions

1 session

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

Date Session and witnesses Source
10 Sep 2025
Oral evidence
Alastair Evans · Rolls Royce SMR, Catherine Anderson · National Infrastructure Planning Association, Julia Pyke · Sizewell C, Mike Finnerty · Office for Nuclear Regulation, Rebecca Phillips · Planning Inspectorate, Tom Greatrex · Nuclear Industry Association
View ↗

Who gave evidence

6 witnesses

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

WitnessOrganisationSessions
Alastair Evans · Director of Corporate Affairs Rolls Royce SMR 1
Catherine Anderson · Board member National Infrastructure Planning Association 1
Julia Pyke · Joint Managing Director Sizewell C 1
Mike Finnerty · Chief Executive and Chief Nuclear Inspector Office for Nuclear Regulation 1
Rebecca Phillips · Interim Chief Planning Inspector Planning Inspectorate 1
Tom Greatrex · Chief Executive Nuclear Industry Association 1