UK Inquiry Tracker

National planning for energy infrastructure

Energy Security and Net Zero Committee Closed Inquiry

Opened: 25 Apr 2025 Closed: 31 Dec 2025 Parliament page

The Government is launching an update to the National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure, which govern development consent for major energy installations. One of the leading aims of the policy update is to give greater clarity about the weight planners should give to competing interests including economic, ecological, energy supply … Read more The Government is launching an update to the National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure, which govern development consent for major energy installations. One of the leading aims of the policy update is to give greater clarity about the weight planners should give to competing interests including economic, ecological, energy supply and security, and even aesthetic considerations, which can severely slow or even halt infrastructure planning decisions in their tracks. And time is of the essence: Government's Clean Power 2030 target will require most new electricity transmission and offshore wind projects to secure planning consent by next year, and most large-scale onshore projects will need that consent by 2028. The Government has indicated that it wants to remove planning ‘blocks’ to the infrastructure development needed for its energy, industrial and growth strategies – but will these updates to the National Policy Statements fit the bill? Can they really help balance the thorny issues around the competing, legitimate aims and interests of national energy needs, local communities and the natural environment? A key example is the question of electricity cabling: it can cost up to ten times as much to bury power cables as to run them on pylons overhead. But strong community objections to pylons on mainly aesthetic grounds can hold up the necessary planning consents - time that national energy needs, targets and strategy now do not have. Where should the balance lie? Do the policy statement updates do enough to help planners decide? Alongside the Government’s consultation on the new policy statements the Committee is launching a quick call for evidence, seeking stakeholder views on the impact of the policy changes. Many stakeholders will be making detailed submissions to the Government consultation on the same short timeline: the Committee would welcome submission of the “highlights” or key elements of these more detailed responses to Government, to be considered by the Committee and synthesised into our own recommendations to the Government. On that basis, the Committee is seeking evidence submissions by 5pm on May 12th from all interested stakeholders on any or all of the following areas in the three updated National Policy Statements for energy infrastructure: Overarching National Policy Statement for energy (EN-1) National Policy Statement for renewable energy infrastructure (EN-3) National Policy Statement for electricity networks infrastructure (EN-5) Show less

22 Recommendations

24 Conclusions

1 Report

2 Oral sessions

2 Events

Activity timeline 6 events

19 Nov
2025

Report published

2nd Special Report - Gridlock or Growth? Avoiding energy planning chaos: Government Response

7 Jul
2025

Report published

2nd Report - Gridlock or growth? Avoiding energy planning chaos

21 May
2025

Oral evidence

21 May
2025

Oral evidence

21 May
2025

Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · The Thatcher Room, Portcullis House

Oral evidence

21 May
2025

Formal meeting (oral evidence session) · Room 16, Palace of Westminster

Oral evidence

Oral evidence sessions 2 sessions

21 May 2025

View on parliament.uk

Oral evidence

Chandni Ruparelia · Island Green Power Charles Wood · Energy UK Charlotte Mitchell · National Grid Electricity Transmission Eleri Wilce · RWE Renewables Julian Leslie CEng FIET · National Energy System Operator (NESO) Lawrence Slade FEI · Energy Networks Associaiton

21 May 2025

View on parliament.uk

Oral evidence

Ali Leeder · Aeos Infrastructure Planning Graham Gunby · Suffolk County Council Isobel Morris · Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Jackie Copley MRTPI · Campaign for Protection of Rural England Peta Donkin · National Infrastructure Planning Association Sam Richards · Britain Remade

Reports 1 report · click to expand

Title	HC No.	Published	Items	Response
2nd Report - Gridlock or growth? Avoiding energy planning chaos	HC 868	7 Jul 2025	46	Responded

Recommendations & Conclusions

2 results

9 Conclusion Rejected

2nd Report - Gridlock or growth? A…

Recognise regional capacities and optimal areas for energy technologies as material considerations in NPS.

We acknowledge the concern that strategic plans should not predetermine the outcome of any application for development consent. However, neither should the planning system be blind to the very existence of such plans and, most importantly, to their possible impact … Read more

Government Response

The government rejects making regional/zonal capacities and optimal areas explicit material considerations in the planning system, stating these should be incentivised through different mechanisms and such ranges have been removed from NPSs.

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

View details

40 Recommendation Rejected

2nd Report - Gridlock or growth? A…

Amend onshore wind guidance (EN-3) to presume against deep peat development and require carbon reporting.

The Government should amend the proposed new guidance on onshore wind in EN-3 to: • whilst recognising there are areas in which development on peat would be unavoidable, introduce a presumption against building onshore wind developments on deep peat; and … Read more

Government Response

The government acknowledges concerns about building wind farms on peatland but does not commit to amending the guidance to introduce a presumption against building on deep peat or requiring carbon emission reporting, stating that current protections within the planning system are sufficient.

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

View details

Government Response AI assessment · 46 of 22 classified

Accepted 22

Accepted in Part 6

Acknowledged 10

Deferred 6

Rejected 2

Total 22 recs + 24 conclusions