Notably, the review was conducted without a single environmental specialist having been invited onto the panel. That omission matters. Because when nature is excluded from the conversation, it is all too easily recast as the problem.
On 13 March the Government issued its response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review.
Earlier this year, 100 MPs and leaders from the environment sector wrote to Secretary of State Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP urging the Government to reject the flawed recommendations of the Review. Thousands of you took part in our e-action to raise these issues with your own MPs.
As a result of this pressure, the Government has stepped back from some of the most damaging proposals. Plans to fundamentally overhaul the Habitats Regulations have not been taken forward, and protections for National Parks and National Landscapes remain in place.
However, at best, this is a partial reprieve.
Behind the headlines, deep concerns remain about how these changes will be implemented – and whether they will weaken protections in practice over time.
The Government continues to speak of “win-wins” for nature and nuclear. Yet their response is contradictory at best – claiming there is no conflict between nature and development, while proposing changes that could weaken how key protections are applied in practice, from the Habitats Regulations Assessment process to the Protected Landscapes Duty.
The details reveal a familiar pattern: one where nature is still treated as a constraint to be managed, rather than a foundation to build from.
A shift from law to guidance – and why that matters
One of the most significant changes is not what has been removed, but how protections will now operate.
Habitats regulations
The Review threatened sweeping legislative reform of the Habitats Regulations to remedy so-called ‘unreasonable burdens’ on developers. Instead of doing this, the Government is proposing to rely heavily on guidance – including on how Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRAs) should be applied
On paper, that may sound like a softer approach. In practice, it raises serious questions.
Guidance can reshape how rules are interpreted without the same level of scrutiny as changes to the law itself. And within that guidance are proposals to:
- exclude so-called “hypothetical or speculative” risks
- encourage the reuse of HRAs
- and allow decision-makers to push back on what is framed as over-application of the regulations
But in complex ecosystems, uncertainty is not speculation. It is reality.
Dismissing ecological risk as “hypothetical” risks sidelining the expertise these protections rely on. And encouraging reuse risks decisions being based on outdated data, in a rapidly changing environment.
This cuts directly across the precautionary principle – a cornerstone of environmental policy. This principle exists precisely because the consequences of getting it wrong can be irreversible. It allows decision-makers to act cautiously where there is credible risk to nature, even if the evidence is not yet complete.
What is being proposed is not the removal of protections outright – but something more subtle: a shift that could weaken how they are applied in practice
These changes together risk tipping the balance too far in favour of development at the expense of the habitats and species these rules were created to protect by allowing destruction before we fully understand what is at stake.
Environmental impact assessments
The move from Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) to Environmental Outcomes Reports (EORs) is framed as a way to reduce duplication and improve efficiency.
On the surface, that sounds sensible. But the risk is not duplication – it is dilution. There is a risk of regression if EORs are not sufficiently robust.
An outcomes-focused approach must still be grounded in a rigorous understanding of impacts. The mitigation hierarchy depends on identifying harm in the first place.
If we move too quickly to predicting long-term outcomes without properly assessing impacts, we risk missing damage that cannot be undone. Predicting outcomes for nature for future decades may be too late, especially in a changing climate.
Environmental delivery plans
Environmental Delivery Plans, introduced through the Planning and Infrastructure Act, allow developers to pay a fixed fee to Natural England instead of following the normal legal route of complying with site-specific obligations.
In theory, this is only permitted where it delivers an ‘overall improvement for nature’.
But alarmingly the Government’s response suggests a willingness to go further in the context of nuclear defence, managing environmental risk in a ‘proportionate’ manner through primary legislation with no mention of overall improvement for nature.
As this becomes law, we will likely see a precedent that risks other projects being grouped into such legislation or rolled out across the industrial strategy.
This marks a shift in emphasis – away from avoiding harm at source, towards ‘managing impacts at a broader scale’. And as we have seen before, once harm is permitted upfront, it can be difficult to fully reverse later.
Protected Landscapes Duty
The Government has stopped short of removing the Protected Landscapes Duty, which was originally threatened.
But it does propose to constrain how that duty is applied, including legislating so that developers of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPS) are explicitly not required to pay financial compensation to comply with the Protected Landscapes Duty.
So, while the Duty remains, changes to the law will narrow how it is fulfilled.
For places like the New Forest and South Downs, already under pressure, that distinction matters.
Judicial review
Alongside these changes sit proposals to reform Judicial Review.
The Government has set out plans to allow nuclear projects to proceed while legal challenges are still ongoing, alongside proposals to indemnify developers against the costs of those challenges, which are characterised as ingenuine or without merit.
These changes relate specifically to environmental permissions and nuclear site licensing. In practice, they risk shifting financial liability onto the public if decisions are later found to be legally flawed, while reducing the incentive for developers to fully resolve legal concerns before proceeding.
Judicial Review is vital framework which safeguards against unlawful decision-making, holds public bodies to account and ensures transparency in regulatory compliance. Weakening its role risks reducing one of the key mechanisms available to ensure environmental protections are properly applied.
Taken together with wider reforms, this points to a system where safeguards are being incrementally weakened at each stage: pre-application scrutiny reduced, obligations under the Habitats Regulations made more flexible through Environmental Delivery Plans, and legal challenge constrained.
Direction of travel
The cumulative effect is a clear shift in balance – towards delivery and developer certainty, and away from environmental protection and accountability.
Whilst the Government’s response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review may not be a dramatic rollback of environmental law – it is a continuation of their ongoing move towards deregulation.
For what we have seen is:
- a shift from law to guidance
- a softening of how protections are applied
- greater flexibility for specific sectors
- and changes to how decisions are scrutinised
The Government has, for now, stepped back from the most extreme proposals. That matters. But the direction of travel remains a serious concern.
The real choice
Once again, this debate is being framed as a trade-off between nature and development. But this is a false choice.
A thriving natural environment is not a barrier to progress. It is the foundation of our economy, our resilience and our wellbeing.
The real question is not whether we build infrastructure, but how. Because weakening the systems that protect nature does not remove risk, it stores it up for the future.
This response continues a troubling pattern: treating nature and development as competing priorities, rather than recognising their interdependence.
The real choice is not between nature and development, but between short-term gains and lasting prosperity.
And the cost of getting that wrong will be far greater than taking the time to get it right.