UK Taskforce Calls for Radical Reset of Nuclear Regulation to Cut Costs and Accelerate Build
Review finds Britain has become the most expensive place globally to build nuclear power plants and urges sweeping reform of planning, regulation and oversight
Britain’s nuclear industry is facing a pivotal moment after an independent government-commissioned review concluded that the country has become the most expensive place in the world to build nuclear power plants, due largely to a fragmented and overly complex regulatory system.
The report describes the current framework as “unnecessarily slow, inefficient and costly” and calls for a “once-in-a-generation” reset to enable faster, more cost-effective delivery of nuclear infrastructure.
Led by the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce and chaired by John Fingleton, the review was commissioned by Prime Minister Keir Starmer in February 2025 as part of the government’s ambition to deliver a “golden age of new nuclear” and strengthen energy security.
It notes that recent escalations in cost—such as the rise in estimated budget for major plants—are linked to regulatory duplication, risk-averse culture and outdated planning rules that hinder innovation and increase lead times.
Among its 47 recommendations, the review proposes establishing a “one-stop shop” regulatory body to streamline decision-making, reducing duplication across multiple regulators, and revising planning frameworks so that new nuclear facilities, including small and advanced modular reactors, can be delivered more flexibly.
One option flagged is allowing construction of reactors in semi-urban locations rather than being confined to remote sites—a change suggested in light of a 1967 rule that restricts siting based on population density.
The sector welcomed the review’s findings as a landmark opportunity to revamp Britain’s nuclear architecture.
The chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association described the report as a chance to make the UK regulatory system “more coherent, transparent and efficient”.
Officials pointed to potential savings in the tens of billions of pounds if the reforms are implemented, thereby accelerating the deployment of key assets such as the Sizewell C project and future advanced reactors.
However, the report has also met resistance from a coalition of 25 community groups near nuclear sites, who argue the proposals risk undermining safety and reducing public participation in decision-making.
They contend that instead of deregulating, greater transparency and more effective planning are needed to regain trust.
The government’s response is due via the Budget led by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, with changes expected to take effect in the spring of 2026. As Britain seeks to scale up nuclear capacity in line with its net-zero ambitions and to secure domestic power supply, the outcome of this regulatory overhaul is set to shape the future of its civil and defence nuclear programmes alike.
Implementation of the taskforce’s recommendations—if underpinned by strong governance and safety oversight—could mark a decisive shift in how nuclear projects are delivered, with implications for cost, timing and the UK’s global competitiveness in the sector.
The report describes the current framework as “unnecessarily slow, inefficient and costly” and calls for a “once-in-a-generation” reset to enable faster, more cost-effective delivery of nuclear infrastructure.
Led by the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce and chaired by John Fingleton, the review was commissioned by Prime Minister Keir Starmer in February 2025 as part of the government’s ambition to deliver a “golden age of new nuclear” and strengthen energy security.
It notes that recent escalations in cost—such as the rise in estimated budget for major plants—are linked to regulatory duplication, risk-averse culture and outdated planning rules that hinder innovation and increase lead times.
Among its 47 recommendations, the review proposes establishing a “one-stop shop” regulatory body to streamline decision-making, reducing duplication across multiple regulators, and revising planning frameworks so that new nuclear facilities, including small and advanced modular reactors, can be delivered more flexibly.
One option flagged is allowing construction of reactors in semi-urban locations rather than being confined to remote sites—a change suggested in light of a 1967 rule that restricts siting based on population density.
The sector welcomed the review’s findings as a landmark opportunity to revamp Britain’s nuclear architecture.
The chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association described the report as a chance to make the UK regulatory system “more coherent, transparent and efficient”.
Officials pointed to potential savings in the tens of billions of pounds if the reforms are implemented, thereby accelerating the deployment of key assets such as the Sizewell C project and future advanced reactors.
However, the report has also met resistance from a coalition of 25 community groups near nuclear sites, who argue the proposals risk undermining safety and reducing public participation in decision-making.
They contend that instead of deregulating, greater transparency and more effective planning are needed to regain trust.
The government’s response is due via the Budget led by Chancellor Rachel Reeves, with changes expected to take effect in the spring of 2026. As Britain seeks to scale up nuclear capacity in line with its net-zero ambitions and to secure domestic power supply, the outcome of this regulatory overhaul is set to shape the future of its civil and defence nuclear programmes alike.
Implementation of the taskforce’s recommendations—if underpinned by strong governance and safety oversight—could mark a decisive shift in how nuclear projects are delivered, with implications for cost, timing and the UK’s global competitiveness in the sector.
