Is the UK reforming permitting?

There’s a major review that almost nobody outside the energy world is talking about but they should be. The 2025 Fingleton Review into nuclear regulation is one of the clearest diagnoses of a structural problem that affects every sector that builds anything complex in the UK.

It concludes that Britain has become the most expensive place in the world to build nuclear, not because our engineers are worse, but because our systems, regulations and institutions have evolved to prioritise process over outcomes and how fragmented responsibilities and slow decisions are inhibiting economic growth.

Keir Starmer has publicly accepted the findings and gone further: We must cut “pointless gold-plating”, end “process-driven decision making”, and apply the same lessons across the wider industrial strategy, not just nuclear.

That is a huge signal and one that should make every leader in energy, infrastructure, industrials, circularity, digital and deep tech sit up.

Because the deeper message is this: The UK has world-class ambition but a delivery system that cannot keep pace. The system is holding back nuclear and also holding back the critical and circular metals infrastructure, AI infrastructure and advanced manufacturing capacity we desperately need to actually grow the economy.

This is not a nuclear problem. It is a national capability problem.

Why this matters outside nuclear

The patterns the review identifies will feel very familiar to anyone trying to build critical infrastructure in Britain.

• Too many departments involved and nobody clearly accountable

• Long sequences of approvals that happen one after another instead of at the same time

• Decisions that are often more cautious than the risk justifies

• Regulators working from documents instead of data

• A culture that tries to avoid mistakes rather than deliver outcomes

• An ethos of guilty until proven innocent

This is not a nuclear problem. It is a UK delivery problem.

The Fingleton Review lands at the same time the UK released its Critical Minerals Strategy in which the government set an ambitious goal of sourcing 20 percent of its critical metals from in-country recycled supply. That is the right target. But with the current approval system, we will not get there. Innovators simply won’t wait, they will build elsewhere, with the UK losing economic growth and talent.

To reach 20 percent recycled metals supply, the UK will need a whole new generation of circular materials infrastructure. That includes advanced recycling plants, metal recovery technology, refining capacity, digital tracing of materials and new environmental and safety pathways. At the moment many of these projects face the same slow, unclear and unpredictable system described in the Fingleton Review.

If we want progress, something has to change.

What the Fingleton approach means for the circular economy and deep tech

1.       Regulate for outcomes, not process.

We need shared definitions of acceptable risk and then clear, practical pathways to meet them. Today, small issues can delay a project by years even when the wider benefit is obvious.

2.      Shift the culture.

This is the hardest part. The objective is to get to yes as quickly as possible. We need a mindset that protects people and the environment while also delivering the growth that the country needs. Safety and speed do not have to be in conflict if the system is designed properly.

3.      Maximum timelines.

Maximum timelines, with set milestones brings certainty to large complex projects. Certainty is the currency of investment. Ambiguity equals risk and even if we speed up the permitting timelines, risk deters investment.

4.     Create a single front door for major projects.

If nuclear needs a lead regulator, then foundational industries like metals do too. Single point of contact and a project owner on the permitting side assigned early.

5.      Build proportionate pathways for proven technology.

If a process or a plant design is already demonstrated to be safe, it should not be treated as a first of its kind every time. Other countries already use fleet approvals for this.

6.     Use modern tools.

Digital twins, real time emissions data and better evidence systems can dramatically speed up decisions. Regulators should not rely on static PDFs for dynamic technologies.

This is not about deregulation. It is about capability.

The aim is not to weaken standards. It is to create a system that is capable of delivering growth and the infrastructure required for energy security, for critical materials and for the wider industrial strategy.

A country that can not approve a nuclear plant on a sensible timeline can not approve a battery recycling plant, a hydrogen facility, a data centre or an advanced manufacturing line either. Fix the underlying system and every strategic sector moves faster.

My view

The Fingleton Review should not be filed away as a nuclear document. It should be treated as a blueprint for how the UK can actually build again. If we apply its principles, we can scale circular metals capacity, strengthen our supply chains, speed up clean energy deployment and give investors confidence that Britain is a place where projects are approved and delivered, not debated indefinitely.

We have a choice now. Do we keep running a system that optimises for process or do we finally build a system that can turn ambition into real assets on the ground?

I know which path I want the UK to take.