Labour plans to limit judicial reviews of nuclear projects would ‘harm democracy’

Plans by Labour to make it harder for communities to oppose infrastructure projects in their local areas, such as nuclear power plants, have been criticised. Additionally, campaigners and a legal expert who spoke to the Canary raised concerns about these plans.

On 20 May, the Treasury announced that the chancellor was expected to discuss new proposals supported by the Labour Party in parliament.

use Parliament to drive through power plants and infrastructure [by giving] Parliament the authority to approve critical energy schemes and better protect infrastructure projects from judicial review.

Lawyer warns of constitutional implications

People with concerns about major infrastructure projects — sometimes called nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), which includes nuclear power plants — are able to request that judges review applications for building NSIPs. If they do so, and judges agree with the arguments they put forward, those reviews can bring an end to projects. Notably, such reviews are especially pressing. This is because of changes Labour intends to introduce.

One legal expert told the Canary that Labour is proposing to give major project proposals the same status as laws passed by lawmakers. Notably, the expert said this move could “have significant constitutional implications.”

Fast-tracking infrastructure projects

The announcement by the Treasury said:

The headline proposal would allow Parliament to designate and approve the most important clean energy projects as being of ‘Critical National Importance’ (CNI), reducing the exposure from judicial review on all but human rights grounds.

This would help deliver the government’s commitment to accelerate new infrastructure development and drive growth, including much-needed projects like new power stations and offshore wind farms.

For all other nationally significant infrastructure – including transport and water projects – the government will introduce a fixed legal challenge window, at the end of which the planning consent could be updated to address any legitimate issues.

Fears of weaker parliamentary scrutiny

Leigh Day is a law firm “established to combat injustice.” They have represented multiple clients who have used judicial reviews to oppose major infrastructure projects overseen by Labour.

Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama told the Canary:

The government appears to be introducing further limits on communities’ ability to have large infrastructure decisions examined by the courts.

The suggestion that projects with political backing should enjoy the same status as acts of parliament, but be spared parliamentary scrutiny, is concerning.

It appears to have significant constitutional implications because it would alter the relationship between government, parliament and judges, giving government proposals the same status as laws passed by elected decision makers.

‘Harming democracy’ and reducing ‘nuclear oversight’

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament general secretary Sophie Bolt told the Canary:

The government is cynically using the crisis in the Middle East to justify limiting transparency and the ability of local communities and campaign groups to appeal the railroading of costly and dirty nuclear power projects.

Limiting the appeals process harms democracy and much needed oversight of the nuclear industry – but will not change the fact that nuclear power relies on the dirty process of extracting and processing uranium for fuel and leaves a legacy of toxic waste that lasts for generations.

The government’s plan to cut regulations and limit the scope for judicial reviews essentially means this industry will be more dangerous.

This is disturbingly similar to what Donald Trump did earlier this year when he gutted the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Anti-Sizewell C group denies judicial review caused delay

A Stop Sizewell C spokesperson told the Canary:

If Sizewell C was genuinely delayed by judicial reviews, why did the National Audit Office (NAO), who would have spoken at length to the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and Sizewell C during their enquiries, not say so?

In October 2025, the Treasury put out a statement saying:

Backing the builders not the blockers, the government will work with the judiciary to cut the amount of time it takes for a judicial review to move through the court system for nationally critical infrastructure projects by around half a year, like Sizewell C.

Then, in May 2026, a National Audit Office (NAO) report about Sizewell C poured cold water on the idea that judicial reviews delayed the project. It explained reasons for delays and judicial reviews were notably absent from the list. The NAO report said:

DESNZ started formal negotiations with EDF for SZC in 2021 and initially expected to reach ’financial close’, when contracts take effect, by the end of March 2023. DESNZ and HM Treasury made a final investment decision (FID) in July 2025, having agreed terms with EDF and other private investors.

This was 4.5 years after negotiations started and at least 28 months later than originally planned. The project was delayed several times, including by the 2024 General Election; responding to feedback from potential investors and the government’s internal assurance processes; and longer than expected negotiations with EDF and the other investors. Financial close was reached in November 2025.

The Stop Sizewell C spokesperson continued:

If the Chancellor is going to persist in using such offensive language, she really ought to get her facts right.

A Together Against Sizewell C spokesperson echoed Stop Sizewell C’s perspective, telling the Canary:

Labour still doesn’t get it – we cannot build a sustainable future by weakening our environmental safeguards and legal rights.

Reeves’ draconian policy change is built on the false premise promoted by the nuclear industry and right wing lobbyists that Sizewell C was excessively delayed by judicial review challenges – this does not stand up to scrutiny.

Reeves’ plans till have to be scrutinised by MPs and peers. However, the leadership contest raises uncertainty over whether Parliament, under Labour leadership, is able to command the confidence of the House of Commons to pass measures weakening judicially reviews of major projects.

Featured image via Chris Radburn / Getty Images