Infrastructure planning blog

Today’s entry looks at the consultation on the draft energy National Policy Statements (NPS) and the latest solar decision.

Energy NPSs

A couple of weeks ago, we reported that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero had launched a consultation on proposed updates to three of the energy NPSs: EN-1 (the Overarching NPS for Energy), EN-3 (renewable energy infrastructure) and EN-5 (electricity infrastructure networks). That means we can likely expect the second update of EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5 in less than 2 years, having had no update for thirteen years before January 2024.

The consultation closes at 11:59pm on Thursday 29 May 2025. The revised NPSs would apply to DCO applications accepted for examination before the NPSs are designated. Until then, the 2024 versions continue to apply but the drafts could be relevant and important to decision-making in the interim, particularly for projects currently at the acceptance and pre-examination stages (it may be worth projects drafting policy compliance appendices against the revised drafts as a result).

At the core of the decision to consult on revised NPSs are:

1. the Clean Power Action Plan 2023 (see here), which was published in December 2024 and includes a target that clean sources should account for 95% of Britain’s energy generation by 2030; and

2. the Government’s response to a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other reforms to the planning system (see here). Notably, this confirmed Government’s decision to reintroduce onshore wind into the NSIP regime.

We promised a fuller update on the drafts and here it is.

NPS EN-1 (EN-1 for some renewables?)

The revised draft EN-1 can be found here.

The policy narrative throughout EN-1 has been updated to cite Clean Power 2030 as the primary policy that the NPSs enable. Low carbon projects relevant for Clean Power 2030 (all onshore and offshore generation that does not involve fossil fuel combustion) attract Critical National Priority (CNP) status, with a presumption in favour of consent. Energy from waste projects no longer attract CNP status, since they do not meet the definition of clean power technology in the 2030 Plan.

The CNP policy means that for qualifying projects, where residual impacts remain after the mitigation hierarchy has been applied, the need for the project will outweigh the residual impacts in all but the most exceptional cases (save where unacceptable risks would be posed to human health and public safety, defence or irreplaceable habitats). In our view, given the Government’s ambitions, there is scope to strengthen this policy to avoid any suggestion that typical adverse impacts would be a basis for refusal. That would substantially reduce the judicial review risk even further than the Government’s current plans.

References to the energy generation thresholds have been updated to reflect forthcoming legislative changes (anticipated to take effect from 31 December 2025). For onshore wind, the threshold will be 100MW to attract (automatic) NSIP status. For solar, the threshold increases from 50MW to 100MW. As you would expect, references to onshore wind feature prominently throughout EN-1. By the by, the draft statutory instrument which increases these thresholds, and introduces onshore wind, could usefully do with clarification on whether co-located wind and solar projects are conjunctive, or disjunctive in terms of MW output (note, the draft SI refers to generation capacity from “wind or solar”; mealy mouthed lawyers like us love the word “or” for this very reason).

NPS EN-3 (for the heavy metal fans)

The revised draft EN-3 can be found here.

New text is proposed to facilitate the assessment and determination of onshore wind projects brought within the NSIP regime. This sets out that applicants should consider factors such as predicted wind speed (the faster the better, so aim for areas of exposed topography); availability and proximity to grid connection; proximity to dwellings. On the last of those, the draft cautions that “appropriate distances should be maintained between wind turbines and sensitive receptors”. Historically, there has been a standard of 125 metres used so this drafting opens up a little flexibility.

For offshore wind, there is also a proposal to require applications to include an assessment of potential inter-array wake effects (that’s where reductions in wind speed and increased turbulence behind one turbine negatively impact the performance of other turbines in the wake) between the proposed scheme and other relevant consented and operational offshore wind farms, to inform and support the consideration of potential mitigations. This presumably reflects the increasing potential for in combination effects arising from the proliferation of offshore projects.

NPS EN-5 (EN-5 will make you get down now)

The revised draft EN-5 can be found here.

The main talking points are the introduction of the Centralised Strategic Network Plan (CSNP) and the Electricity Transmission Design Principles (ETDP).

The first CSNP is due in 2027 and will set out a long-term approach to 2050 on planning transmission infrastructure and how it will meet energy security and decarbonisation goals. EN-5 deems that the need case and technology type for projects which adhere to the CSNP is established and does not have to be examined by the Secretary of State. Some echoes there of the approach to projects relating to the strategic road network, where the underlying business case is established in advance by the Road Investment Strategy.

The National Electricity System Operator will be consulting on a set of design principles to apply to offshore and onshore infrastructure, which the NPS will require developers to have regard to. The principles will “provide greater clarity on the type of asset to be used in different environments and how the impacts of infrastructure can be mitigated”. Presumably, the choice of overhead lines or underground cables will be central to framing the principles.

Do it for Yorkshire

The East Yorkshire Solar Farm DCO was granted consent on 9 May. The decision letter is available here (refreshingly short at 19 pages) and the made Order here.

It’s a 1276-hectare site (966ha/2,387 acres for the solar panels, or about 1,500 football pitches for those working to the SI unit of land measurement) with an associated connection to National Grid’s Drax Substation. The MW output is above 50MW but subject to a 400MW peak cap (i.e., the limit of the grid connection agreement). Importantly, that maximum cap is not reflected in the DCO which maintains flexibility for technological changes, and reverses an unwelcome practice of seeking to limit electricity generation from renewable assets.

One or two points to note from the decision letter:

• The Examining Authority attributed only moderate positive weight to the need case for the proposed development. This was based on the lack of battery storage as part of the proposals and its view that the land could be used more efficiently. The Secretary of State disagreed. First, the SoS found that “… the urgent need for solar infrastructure is not predicated on the basis that there is only an urgent need if a proposal is brought forward with battery storage”. Second, on land use efficiency, 2,387 acres for a maximum output of 400MW = c. 6 acres / MW. NPS EN-3 advises that a solar farm requires 2 to 4 acres for each MW of output. The ExA therefore considered the land use efficiency of the proposed development to be low relative to EN-3. However, the SoS found that the figures in EN-3 were only advisory, were not supported by a clear methodology and that the figures all depended on allowances made for things like buffer zones, fencing, PRoW and mitigation areas. Despite all of this, I note that the revised draft NPSs out for consultation still reference 2 to 4 acres in the same way and with no further supporting guidance (see para 2.10.9).

• A requirement has been added by the SoS that any final BNG strategy submitted to the local planning authority for approval prior to commencement of development must achieve minimum defined net gain contributions for biodiversity overall and for individual BNG units. This now appears to be the SoS’ standard approach (see, for example, the recent Heckington Fen and Mallard Pass Orders), so the message appears to be that, to attract positive weight in the planning balance, there need to be specific and quantified BNG proposals secured by the Order.

• The SoS had regard to (and considered to be relevant and important) the Environment Agency’s updated guidance and data in relation to flood and coastal erosion risk, published in January and March 2025 after the examination had finished, but concluded that the updates did not materially alter the applicant’s conclusions or the original modelling which underpinned them. Applications in train would be well advised to have regard to the updated guidance.

Atomic Kitten

Finally, the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce has issued a call for evidence. The Taskforce is looking at the suitability and streamlining efforts across regulation, planning and environmental legislation. You can see the call for evidence here.

The Taskforce will be reporting to the Prime Minister, and the Secretaries of State at DESNZ and the MoD. The members include a familiar face, my blogging co-author Mustafa Latif-Aramesh, who has managed to smuggle himself into an esteemed pack.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at May 2025. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.