LionLink interconnector: 2GW plan keeps NSIP route

The LionLink interconnector can continue towards a development consent application without a new national significance direction, despite plans to increase its electricity export capacity to 2GW.

In a decision dated 2nd October and published on 7th October 2026, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero confirmed that alterations to the North Sea project remain within the scope of the Secretary of State’s existing section 35 direction under the Planning Act 2008.

The distinction matters. Ministers have not granted consent for LionLink, and they have not formally varied the 2022 direction. They have confirmed that the modified project can still use the development consent order process rather than starting again to establish its national infrastructure status.

LionLink interconnector retains its national infrastructure route

The Government’s published decision addresses a specific procedural question, not the merits of building a large new energy link. National Grid Lion Link Limited asked the Secretary of State to vary an August 2022 direction that had brought the project, then called EuroLink, within the nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) consenting regime.

That request followed changes in the project’s name, regulatory arrangements, export capacity and the proposed scope of electrical infrastructure in Suffolk. National Grid wanted certainty that the development consent application it is preparing would continue to relate to the project covered by the earlier direction.

The Secretary of State’s response was to keep the original direction as it stands. The letter says the changes are not sufficiently substantive to warrant varying the existing Direction. In other words, the alterations do not change the underlying identity or physical nature of the project sufficiently to need a fresh direction.

Importantly, that is not the same as rejecting the project itself. The decision provides a route through a particular procedural issue while leaving all substantive assessment for the development consent process.

Export capacity rises to 2GW, but the import limit stays at 1.8GW

The original LionLink proposal assumed an interconnector capable of exporting up to 1.8 gigawatts of electricity from Great Britain. Its latest design would allow exports of up to 2GW to the Netherlands, while retaining a maximum import capacity of 1.8GW.

The figures are easily confused, particularly where the project is described simply as a ‘2GW interconnector’. The higher figure concerns proposed export capability. It does not mean that the UK would automatically be able to import 2GW over the same link.

National Grid says the increased export capacity does not require a fundamental change to the physical scope of the project. The Secretary of State accepted that position for the limited purpose of the existing section 35 direction.

The project involves subsea electricity cables, underground high-voltage direct-current connections from the Suffolk coast, an onshore converter station and connections to the wider transmission network in the Leiston area. The wider concept also includes a connection to a Dutch offshore wind farm, enabling international power trading and potentially combining wind transmission with interconnection.

Suffolk substation plans have also changed

The second material project adjustment concerns the connection to the national electricity grid near Leiston. The original 2022 proposal envisaged consenting the full construction of a substation as part of LionLink, even though other energy projects had already secured consent for associated works.

National Grid now expects the wider substation to be delivered separately under existing or potential consents. Its LionLink application would instead seek consent for an extension sufficient to accommodate the new connection.

That difference matters for the consent boundary, environmental assessment and coordination between neighbouring energy projects. A project can retain the same overarching purpose while the division of works between developers and consent applications changes.

In the present decision, however, ministers concluded that this revised substation approach did not materially change the project described in the section 35 direction. It is not an approval of the substation extension’s design, siting or environmental effects.

Why section 35 of the Planning Act 2008 matters

Under the Planning Act 2008, many types of major infrastructure automatically enter the NSIP regime when they meet the relevant statutory definitions and thresholds. Section 35 also allows the Secretary of State to direct that a qualifying project in a prescribed field, such as energy, is to be treated as development requiring a development consent order.

LionLink was brought into that process by a direction in August 2022. The 2026 request raised whether project evolution had gone far enough to require the original direction to be varied under the statutory powers.

The answer was no. The original direction continues to cover the project. This is a useful illustration of the distinction between a change that affects the eventual merits of an application and a change that alters the identity of the project for the purpose of a gateway direction.

Practitioners assessing comparable schemes should still check the precise wording of the original direction and the proposed development. This decision does not establish a general rule that any capacity increase or design revision is automatically immaterial.

National policy supports interconnection, but consent is not automatic

In its September 2026 request, National Grid pointed to growing policy support for interconnectors and offshore hybrid assets, including the Government’s Clean Power 2030 programme, later electricity flexibility publications and the relevant energy National Policy Statements.

Those policies recognise that interconnection can help move electricity between markets, support security of supply and make better use of renewable generation. The same documents also reflect the continuing need for environmental assessment and the statutory safeguards applicable to major energy infrastructure.

Planning Geek’s explanation of National Policy Statements for nationally significant infrastructure projects sets out how the need case and other policy considerations interact during examination.

The Secretary of State expressly reserved the question of development consent. The October letter states that its conclusion does not prejudice consideration of any subsequent application on its planning merits. That qualification is important for affected communities, statutory consultees and landowners, as well as for project promoters.

What this means for the development consent application

National Grid’s request says that the LionLink application is currently programmed for April 2027. That is a promoter’s indicative programme, not confirmation that an application has been submitted or accepted for examination.

Before a development consent order can be made, the proposal must go through the relevant pre-application, acceptance, examination and recommendation stages. The examining authority and Secretary of State will need to consider the evidence against the applicable legal framework and National Policy Statements.

Issues that can still arise include landfall and cable-route effects, landscape and ecology, construction traffic, noise, land rights, cumulative interactions with other energy projects and the detailed design of onshore infrastructure. Whether any particular impact is acceptable will depend on the eventual application and evidence.

For comparison, Planning Geek has covered the Beacon Fen development consent decision and the subsequent legal challenge, both of which demonstrate why a national need case and a procedurally valid consenting route are different from a guarantee of permission.

A procedural confirmation with wider lessons for energy developers

The strongest practical lesson is about keeping the consenting strategy aligned with a changing project. Major infrastructure can evolve over several years as grid arrangements, commercial assumptions, policy and adjoining schemes change.

Where a project relies on an existing section 35 direction, a promoter needs to establish that the application remains within the development described in that direction. Seeking formal confirmation in advance may reduce uncertainty, but the response will depend on the particular wording and facts.

Equally, consultees should not assume that the absence of a fresh direction means no meaningful changes have been made. The export-capacity increase and Suffolk substation arrangements still warrant scrutiny through the normal application documents.

The decision offers a useful distinction for planning statements and consultation responses: identify what the Government has decided, what it has merely confirmed, and which matters remain for the statutory merits assessment.

What happens next for LionLink?

The published documents include the Secretary of State’s two-page decision letter and National Grid’s eight-page variation request. They provide the clearest primary evidence of what has, and has not, been decided.

The immediate next milestone is the development consent application programme. The promoter currently anticipates submission in April 2027, after which the Planning Inspectorate’s statutory processes would determine whether and how the proposal progresses to examination.

For now, the new event is narrower but significant: the Government has confirmed that LionLink’s revised 2GW export proposal remains within the 2022 national infrastructure direction. The project has retained its consenting route, not secured its eventual development consent.