Infrastructure Planning Blog

There is a bit of a pause on Development Consent Order (DCO) decisions, there being none this month, but that doesn't mean there is no DCO news.  This week we cover a new national policy statement (NPS), a strange Irish judgment and a Northern Ireland wind turbine appeal.

EN-8 published for consultation

There was originally a National Policy Statement (NPS) numbered EN-6 that covered nuclear power projects and was stated to last until 2025. Like nuclear fission, it has now split into two NPSs, EN-7 and EN-8 (although when it is atoms the numbers go down rather than up).

EN-7, for nuclear energy generation (i.e. through fission) was eventually designated in December last year and can be found here.  Unlike its predecessor this one did not specify any sites that were suitable for nuclear power stations.

A separate NPS to cover fusion energy generation has now been published for consultation and can be found here.  Fusion uses deuterium ('heavy hydrogen') from sea water and tritium (even heavier hydrogen) from fusion reactions. The consultation closes on 17 August.

The draft NPS commits the government to amending the nationally significant infrastructure project threshold to extend the current definition of electrical capacity over 50MW to include, for fusion only, thermal capacity or a combination of thermal and electrical capacity (para 1.6.2). Importantly, it confirms that fusion development will benefit from the ‘critical national priority’ designation.

It states that Examining Authorities should not recommend refusal because any other consenting, licensing or permitting process is not yet complete (para 2.4.8).  Having said that it then says applicants must secure confirmation from the Health and Safety Executive that the reactor location will satisfy the Semi-Urban Population Density criterion.  I looked it up and it is roughly that there must be fewer than 5000 people per square kilometre living in any 30 degree sector centred on any radiological hazard part of the site up to 30km away. More precision can be found here. There are some military proximity restrictions as well, plus a host of other siting considerations. There is some text about phasing and not being penalised for only delivering an initial phase (2.6.3).

The Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce had recommended a revision to this “SUPDC” criterion on the basis that the existing methodology is a fairly dated and screens out suitable sites in the nuclear fission context. In effect, it produces identical risk scores for a 10 MWe micro-reactor and a 3,000 MWe dual-unit pressurised water reactor with the same local demographics; and b) The model of how radionuclides escape in a release does not reflect current reactor design. The Government is now revising that methodology to ensure that otherwise suitable sites are not screened out.

The assessment considerations section relies mostly on the overarching energy NPS EN-1, but adds special considerations for environmental (including 'landform change'), safety and security (including 'seismic activity'), operational and developmental (which is divided into socio-economic and local impacts, the latter of which are essentially statutory nuisances).

There is an interesting list at the end of non-exhaustive lists of consultees 'that applicants are advised to engage with' for each topic covered by the NPS.

Do solar farms need environmental impact assessment?

A recent judgment of the High Court of Ireland has stated that solar farms do not require environmental impact assessment because they are not listed in either annex of the environmental impact assessment directive.

Have we been under a false assumption for all these years!? I had a look at the EIA criteria and some solar environmental statements.  They tend to rely on category 3(a) in Annex 2 'industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water'. But then why are wind farms listed separately under 3(i) as 'installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production'? Surely solar farms are more like the latter but aren't listed? I dare someone to apply for a DCO without an environmental statement based on that case...

A noisy wind turbine

Further north, a planning appeal against the refusal of an application for a single replacement wind turbine in Lisburn in Northern Ireland was unsuccessful.  The decision can be found here.

The key issue was whether the noise assessment by the developer was adequate – it was determined that it was not. As the Commissioner concluded, ‘The existence of a realistic and credible risk of exceedance [of noise thresholds], arising from unresolved evidential uncertainty, is sufficient to conclude that compliance has not been demonstrated.’  This was not outweighed by the climate change benefits of the project.

The current standards for wind turbine noise are contained in ETSU-R-97 named after the now-disbanded Energy Technology Support Unit.  It is getting quite elderly but is still in force, although a consultation was held last year on updating it.

Local authorities can now charge

As reported in Blog 51, legislation was made to allow local authorities to charge for handling DCOs in certain circumstances, even without applicants’ agreement. This is just a reminder that this came into force on Monday 8 June.

And finally, as biodiversity net gain for NSIPs takes shape, applicants for projects already being examined are being asked to comment on any implicatoins for their projects - see section 3 in this Norwich to Tilbury letter, for example.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at June 2026.  For more information see our terms & conditions.