The Government’s Response to the Fingleton Review: Progress and Continuing Concerns – by Sally Hayns CEcol FCIEEM

This blog was written by CIEEM’s CEO, Sally Hayns CEcol FCIEEM.

The Government has now published its response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025 undertaken by a panel of experts led by the economist, John Fingleton.

Unfortunately, they forgot to include anyone with any environmental science expertise on a panel that was, in part, looking at environmental regulation. Oh well – these things happen.

Many of the review’s recommendations had serious implications for environmental protection and the prospects of delivering on our national and international nature recovery ambitions. Not least because in its initial response the Government said that it wanted the recommendations to be applied beyond nuclear and across the industrial strategy.

As usual the focus was on deregulation rather than fixing problems of process, resourcing and capacity.

The good news is that the Government has stepped back from some of the more damaging recommendations. For example, there was concern that it would seek to scrap the Habitat Regulations Assessment regime altogether or so thoroughly decimate it that it would be ineffective.

Instead, the Government has said that it will look at ways of improving implementation of HRA through measures such as improved guidance and some minor amendments that practitioners have been recommending for years. About time too.

But in the not so good news, the Government is going to use  a ‘nuclear’ version of the Environmental Delivery Plan (EDP) approach created by Part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act to enable developers to discharge all the requirement for project specific surveys and bespoke mitigation by allowing them to pay a lump sum (presumably into the Nature Restoration Fund). It appears that there is not even going to be any requirement for the EDP to contain conservation actions that will ’materially outweigh’ the harm resulting from the development. Just pay the money.

This really is a ‘licence to trash’ and puts some of our most important sites for wildlife at real risk of irreparable harm. Essentially the Government is saying as long as you can pay the fine – do the crime with our blessing.

Furthermore, the Government will legislate to ‘constrain’ (read that as nullify) the Protected Landscapes Duty that was amended by the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. This Duty required developers to pay financial compensation to planning authorities for damaging impacts to protected landscapes. It acts as an important deterrent to unnecessary damage whilst also giving authorities resources to restore landscapes that have suffered harm.

These two actions are a really retrograde and harmful step in my opinion, and I will be very surprised (and disappointed) if there is not a condemnatory backlash.

Yes, there are problems with environmental regulation and NSIP delivery – but we have a climate emergency and a biodiversity crisis. We can’t solve some problems by making others much worse.

We need to be tackling these issues collaboratively, intelligently, respectfully and with urgency.