We have written to the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government and for Energy Security & Net Zero asking them NOT to implement recommendations from a controversial review of nuclear regulation. Read the letter.
Economist John Fingleton and his taskforce were commissioned to make recommendations for speeding up the delivery of new nuclear power stations. Their report, published in November 2025, contained 47 wide-ranging recommendations, including changes to laws that protect wildlife habits, National Parks and National Landscapes.
We are particularly concerned about two recommendations that directly threaten our work opposing new oil and gas developments.
Proposal 15: “overturn the Finch judgment”
Recommendation 15 includes: “legislate to overturn the Finch judgment for low-carbon infrastructure”. This refers to our 2024 legal win when the Supreme Court ruled that the greenhouse gas emissions from burning oil and gas must be included in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process for new fossil fuel developments . The ruling was widely welcomed as a victory for common sense. The government itself said it brought “greater clarity and stability” for offshore oil and gas developers.
This recommendation is based on a misunderstanding of how the EIA regime works. Fingleton fears that the Finch judgment might force developers to assess greenhouse gas emissions associated with nuclear developments multiple times along the supply chain. However the relevant regulations are clear that information provided in EIAs earlier in the supply chain don’t need to be repeated.
Proposal 20: make judicial reviews riskier
Recommendation 20 aims to make it more difficult – and riskier – to bring legal challenges to bad planning decisions, by raising and allowing the removal of the cost cap for judicial reviews and limiting legal challenges to Nationally Strategic Infrastructure Projects to a “single bite of the cherry”.
Campaigner Sarah Finch was able to bring the judicial review challenge on behalf of the Weald Action Group because of the Aarhus costs cap. Had we faced the prospect of paying the other side’s full costs if we lost, the Weald Action Group would not have embarked on the case. And our application for judicial review was refused twice and we went to the Court of Appeal. We took several bits of the cherry – and went on to win a landmark victory.
John Fingleton himself says, “It’s important for the public to be able to challenge public bodies when they make mistakes”. The reason there are so many legal challenges related to EIA is not that challenging decisions is too easy. It’s because developers and their consultants sometimes omit information or minimise impacts in a way that is unlawful. If the developer does their job properly, there’s no risk of successful legal challenge.
Specifically about the nuclear sector
Fingleton was tasked with making recommendations for the nuclear sector specifically. Worryingly, the Prime Minister has said he wants to implement them more widely. In a speech in December, Keir Starmer said that Fingleton found: “Unnecessary red-tape… Well-intentioned, but fundamentally misguided, environmental regulations… Now I agree with him. In fact – I would go further… In addition to accepting the Fingleton recommendations… I am asking the Business Secretary to apply these lessons across the entire industrial strategy.”
The government is expected to respond to the Fingleton report in the near future. Our letter explains why they should ignore recommendations 15 and 20. We also endorse concerns expressed by the Wildlife Trusts, RSPB and others about recommendations 11, 12 and 19.
In a blog published by the Green Alliance this week, Sarah Finch wrote: “In his enthusiastic adoption of proposals to rip up environmental safeguards, Starmer is showing the same misunderstanding he showed over the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
“Nature – and regulations to protect it – are not barriers to the kind of growth we need. There is nothing to be gained from fast-tracking developments if we destroy our environment in the process.”
Read more:
Letter to the Prime Minister and Secretaries of State
The Fingleton Review has tempted the government to scrap hard won environmental protections: blog by Sarah Finch on the Green Alliance website