Ed Miliband has unveiled plans to cut regulations, costs and bureaucracy by the end of next year to speed up the development of nuclear power generation.

The UK government said the changes, to be carried out this year, would deliver a “win-win for building critical infrastructure while protecting nature and the environment”.

However, ministers were quickly accused of “irresponsible deregulation” and putting nature at risk.

The shake-up will see the government implement the recommendations of a review completed last year by the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce, which was led by the former chief executive of the Office of Fair Trading, John Fingleton.

It said an overhaul of the “overly complex” and “bureaucratic” system which “favoured process over safe outcomes” was needed.

Miliband, the energy secretary, said: “As the current Middle East conflict shows, we need to go further and faster to build the clean energy we need to get off volatile fossil fuel markets and deliver energy security for our country.

“A crucial part of this is ensuring that we speed up the building of infrastructure in a way that reduces costs as well as delivering better outcomes for nature.”

In June, Miliband announced a £14.2bn programme to build a new nuclear power station, including a multi-billion pound investment at Sizewell C on the Suffolk coast, and a drive to build small modular reactors (SMR).

On Friday, Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, published the regulatory justification for Rolls-Royce’s plan to become the first company to try and build small modular reactors in the UK.

The government said the introduction of the regulatory reforms meant it was likely to be the last time that type of mini-nuclear power plant needed to go through such a lengthy process.

“To build national resilience, drive energy security and deliver economic growth, we need nuclear,” said Rachel Reeves, the chancellor. “That’s why we’re overhauling the system, getting rid of duplicative or overly complex guidance, rules and regulations that have been holding back our nuclear ambitions.”

The government said the core of the plan was to move to a regulatory system that is “proportionate, focused on real risk, rooted in evidence”, while also designed to “effectively protect nature and biodiversity”.

John Healey, the defence secretary, said: “In this new era for defence, our nuclear weapons deter the most extreme threats to national security, sending the ultimate warning to anyone who seeks to do us harm.” .

However, top environmental planning lawyer Alexa Culver of RSK Wilding said: “No ecologists or environmental specialists were invited to shape these proposals into anything that resembles a ‘win’ for nature.

“This is irresponsible deregulation at a time when the true human and national costs of nature degradation is becoming more fully understood.

“Recently popularised and devastating environmental scandals – like within the water industry – prove that high-stakes regulation is complex and easily manipulated when ‘simplified’ without checks and balances. This was a chance for the government to design resilience into our industrial strategy and the government didn’t take it.”

The government also said that over 500 doctoral students would be trained over four annual intakes, quadrupling the current intake of those studying nuclear PhDs.

It was also backing seven research programmes with £65.6m of new funding, which would be matched by industry partners, to be carried out by universities across the UK.

“Nuclear power is essential to deliver our energy independence and achieve net zero,” said Charlotte Brumpton-Childs, national officer for nuclear at the GMB union. “Our members stand ready to build the next generation of nuclear power right across the UK.”

The nuclear regulatory taskforce was set up by Keir Starmer in February after the government promised to rip up “archaic rules” and slash regulations to “get Britain building”.

Starmer accepted the recommendations in December, saying he wanted to use the approach to inform the government’s wider industrial strategy.