Public Law Project says evidence does not exist to justify extending NSIP judicial review reforms to other planning judicial reviews

In July the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation on extending the reforms beyond NSIPs to major housing, transport and energy developments.

Section 13 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which came into force earlier this year, now requires NSIP cases to proceed directly to an oral permission hearing and removes the right of appeal for claims which are deemed totally without merit at that hearing.

The MoJ claimed that the reforms “streamlined judicial review for NSIPs, helping to reduce delays, deter weak and meritless claims and ensure cases are resolved more quickly.”

In its response the Public Law Project argued that “there is not adequate evidence that it is in the public interest for these reforms to be extended to other planning regimes”.

The legal charity said that as judicial review is one of the UK’s most important constitutional mechanisms for promoting the rule of law and ensuring public bodies remain within their legal powers, it should only be restricted “where there is clear evidence and a compelling reason in the public interest”.

It added: “The Government has clearly stated that it is unclear such evidence exists, as a result the Government should not proceed with these proposals on constitutional and evidential grounds.”

PLP claimed bringing judicial reviews in the planning context is “already a challenge”.

It said: “For example, there is a statutory time limit of 6 weeks (compared to the usual three months) to issue a planning claim in the Administrative Court.”

The consultation response also suggested that it remains unclear how the Ministry’s proposals will detrimentally impact people with protected characteristics.

The charity meanwhile expressed concern that extending the NSIP regime to other planning judicial reviews would be used by this or future administrations to justify expanding the restrictions to further judicial reviews still.

“The more widely the net is cast, the greater the risk to access to justice and the rule of law – simply because there are more claims at issue.”