Reforms to the NSIP Regime (and Beyond…)

James Goldthorpe, Emyr Thomas and Alastair Lewis set out where the government’s Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (“NSIPs”) reforms have reached, the implications of the changes made to date and how the latest consultation “beyond NSIPS” could allow the government to build on the progress which has already been made this Parliament.

Promising to streamline the planning process for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (“NSIPs”), the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (the "PIA 2025") was one of the landmark legislative accomplishments of the Starmer–Reeves administration.  Eight months on, with two new occupants in Downing Street, the majority of the PIA 2025’s NSIP reforms have now come into force via commencement regulations, but it remains to be seen how the new government will take forward the planning reform agenda among its myriad of new policy proposals. 

In mid-July, a new consultation was launched seeking views on whether the flagship reforms to the judicial review process for NSIPs should be extended to other types of development consented under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 

Commencement of PIA 2025 Reforms

Of the 13 sections aimed at reforming the NSIP regime in Part 1, Chapter 1 of the PIA 2025, all but section 12 (which makes provision for post-consent issues like amending and revoking development consent orders) are now in force.   A significant tranche of sections were commenced in July, as summarised in the table below:

For host local authorities, the removal of statutory consultation requirements and the increased flexibility introduced by Section 35B directions are likely to represent the most significant of the changes brought into force in July.

In relation to the latter, host authorities should note that the government’s new guidance on powers to direct a project into or out of the NSIP regime encourages developers considering an ‘opt-out’ request to seek early engagement with the alternative consenting authority (often, the local planning authority). That means, in practice, that local planning authorities may soon be asked to confirm whether they can appropriately determine what would otherwise constitute an NSIP and provide written views on whether the ‘alternative consenting regime’ – be that the option of a standard planning application, or possibly a local development order – is available and capable of being dealt with by the authority in the light of the proposal’s scale and complexity.

The removal of mandatory pre-application consultation requirements will also have significant implications for host local planning authorities. By replacing statutory duties with voluntary best-practice guidance, the latest tranche of reforms mean that host authorities may no longer be able to rely on a guaranteed role at the pre-application stage of a NSIP and will need to help applicants to reconcile the potentially conflicting principles of “front-loading” and “proportionality” within the familiar context of funding and resource constraints.

The new statutory duty in section 60A of the Planning Act 2008  — requiring relevant public authorities to have regard to Secretary of State guidance when preparing local impact reports (“LIRs”) or making representations during examination — is also  significant for local authorities. LIRs enjoy special status under sections 104 and 105 of the Planning Act 2008 (which require the SoS to have regard to them at the decision-making stage). LIRs constitute a key lever for host authorities seeking to influence NSIPs within their area so new guidance shaping how LIRs are prepared could fundamentally alter the way local concerns are articulated in DCO examinations and the extent to which they factor into development consent decisions.

Judicial Review Reforms: to NSIPs and Beyond

Section 13 of the PIA 2025 targeted what had been characterised as the “three bites of the cherry” available to claimants challenging DCOs. Under the pre-reform position, a claimant refused permission on the papers could seek an oral renewal hearing and, if refused again, appeal to the Court of Appeal. Section 13 has amended section 18 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 so that, for NSIP cases, the paper permission stage is bypassed, and claims proceed directly to an oral permission hearing; if the High Court certifies the claim as “totally without merit,” there is no right of onward appeal. Complementary amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) — formally designating NSIP judicial reviews as “Significant Planning Court Claims,” introducing new timescales and encouraging case management conferences — came into force from October 2025, with further amendments expected in October 2026. 

The JR reforms have already been tested in practice. In April, a challenge to the Stonestreet Green Solar Farm DCO was certified as totally without merit and disposed of at a single hearing with no right of appeal.  More recently, in R (Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) v Secretary of State for Transport [2026] EWCA Civ 648, the Court of Appeal refused an extension of time and relief from sanctions application made by a group challenging the Luton Airport expansion DCO.  In that case, the Appellants had been nine days late filing their notice of appeal under updated paragraph 17.3 of the Practice Direction 52D (which had reduced the time to file this notice from 21 to seven days).  At the end of July 2026, the Supreme Court refused an application for permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s refusal of the extension of time application.  

Building on the perceived success the reforms, the Ministry of Justice consultation Judicial Review Reforms Beyond Nationally Significant Infrastructure, published on 16 July 2026 and open until 27 August 2026, asks whether recent reforms to the JR procedure for NSIPs should be extended to developments requiring planning permission under the TCPA 1990 and TWA Orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992. 

Owing to the recent increase in NSIP thresholds for onshore wind and solar (to 100MW from 31 December 2025), a growing number of major energy schemes are likely to be consented through the TCPA rather than the DCO process and the new section 35B “direct-out” power (outlined above) may further increase this flow. In this context, the consultation asks whether other types of development should also benefit from the judicial review reforms which currently stand to benefit NSIPs alone. The consultation proposes targeting reforms at two categories: “major infrastructure projects” (projects meeting NSIP thresholds but consented other than under the Planning Act 2008, projects “directed out” under s35B, and certain Special Development Order projects) and “strategically important developments” (including onshore wind over 50MW, electricity network projects, and grid-scale battery storage over 100MW). It also asks whether significant housing developments — schemes with more than 150 homes — should also been subject to the changes.

The specific proposals mirror the NSIP reforms: removing the paper permission stage so claims proceed directly to an oral hearing (achievable through CPR changes), removing the right of appeal for totally without merit cases (requiring primary legislation), and formally designating qualifying cases as Significant Planning Court Claims with shorter timescales and deadlines.

Under the TCPA 1990, local planning authorities are the primary decision-makers and would be defendants in any judicial review of their own planning decisions. The consultation itself acknowledges that some proposals “may present difficulties for inexperienced claimants and litigants in person” — but the same compressed timescales could also bear heavily on defendant authorities. For example, the removal of the paper permission stage would require authorities to engage with oral hearings at short notice; the proposed reduction in the deadline for filing detailed grounds of defence from 35 to 28 days would compress preparation time further still; and designation as Significant Planning Court Claims would bring the same expectation of speed and specialist handling that currently applies to DCO challenges handled by central government.  That would mean local authorities would need to ensure they have adequate legal resource and rapid escalation procedures in place.

Whilst some aspects of the reforms could be challenging, there could also be significant benefits for LPAs if the changes are taken forward.  For example, achieving greater certainty over the finality of planning decisions could reduce overall legal costs and free up officer time otherwise spent managing prolonged challenges. Meritless claims from action groups and other objectors could be disposed of swiftly, as demonstrated by Stonestreet Green, rather than casting a shadow over delivery for months. Furthermore, if the consultation’s suggestion of including significant housing developments (schemes with more than 150 homes) is taken forward, authorities under pressure to meet ambitious housing targets may find that a streamlined JR process helps unlock the delivery of consented schemes more quickly in a boost to overall housing numbers. The consultation closes on 27 August 2026.

How Sharpe Pritchard can help

The pace of reform across the NSIP regime and the wider planning system shows no sign of slowing. Local authorities engaging with nationally significant and strategically important developments will need to navigate a rapidly evolving legal and procedural landscape — from the reformed DCO application process under the PIA 2025, to the potential extension of judicial review reforms to the TCPA 1990 and TWA 1992.

Sharpe Pritchard's planning and parliamentary team has extensive experience with all aspects of the NSIP regime, including pre-application matters, the DCO examination and a multitude of post-consent issues. We have worked on some of the largest infrastructure projects in the country and developed an intricate understanding of the demands which NSIPs place on participants, including host local authorities, and how best to navigate them.

Please contact a member of our team if you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this article.

Alastair Lewis and Emry Thomas are Partners and Parliamentary Agents and James Goldthorpe is an Associate at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.

---

For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

 

 

Visit Sharpe Pritchard's new Building Safety Hub, focusing on The Building Safety Act 2022 and its wide-ranging impact.

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..