05/06/2025
The recently published Planning and Infrastructure Bill is a key plank of the Government’s strategy for change in the planning system.
The Bill targets five key areas for reform , with an emphasis on accelerating processes and delivery of major infrastructure.
The Bill is still in the committee stage and there is a long way to go through the parliamentary process to before it obtains Royal Assent. However, it is at the forefront of the Government’s agenda for change.
Overview
The Bill is broken down into the following key parts:
• Part One: Infrastructure
• Part Two: Planning
• Part Three: Development and Nature Recovery
• Part Four: Development Corporations
• Part Five: Compulsory Purchase
This paper focuses on the three areas with the immediate practical implications for decision making: Infrastructure (dealing only with Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (“NSIPs”)), Planning, and Compulsory Purchase.
However, Parts Three and Four - Development and Nature Recovery, and Development Corporations - contain broader policy ambitions that should not be overlooked. It is recommended that both the Government’s guide to the Bill and explanatory notes are reviewed for an in-depth view of all the proposed areas for change. Both are provided as a footnote for reference.
Part One: Infrastructure
NSIP Reform
Following the publication of a working paper in January 2025, the Government has motioned its intention to overhaul the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects regime. Key priorities include modernising National Policy Statements (NPSs), simplifying application routes, and removing procedural issues- without compromising necessary checks and balances.
The Bill aims to deliver on these ambitions. The key initiatives are:
NPS Updates
A statutory requirement for NPS to be reviewed and updated every five years to ensure they reflect current government priorities, legislation, and legal decisions.
This approach seems generally good and provides more flexibility however, given that NPSs are frequently the subject of legal challenge, the risk remains that rushed or politically driven updates could lead to further litigation rather than less.
Flexible Consenting Routes
A new power will allow the SoS to direct alternative consenting routes on a case-by-case basis. In practice, this means some schemes could be determined under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA”) instead of the Development Consent Order (“DCO”) regime.
Certain sectors - such as energy - will welcome this flexibility, particularly where project scale and capacity do not warrant a full DCO route allowing for (at least in practice) an easier route to obtaining consent.
However, it would shift a potential burden onto Local Planning Authorities (“LPAs”), many of which are already under strain. The Government’s own explanatory note acknowledges a £362 million annual funding gap for LPA development management services. Unless accompanied by meaningful resource, this change risks worsening existing capacity issues.
Streamlining Consultation
Consultation has long been noted as a procedural block, despite remaining highly important, and might lead to applicant’s adopt an overly cautious approach, fearful of legal challenge and encouraged by the lack of clarity in current requirements.
To address this the Bill proposes several proposals:
- A more proportionate approach from the Planning Inspectorate when accepting applications
- New statutory guidance for local authorities and consultees on engaging with NSIP projects
- Simplified consultation report requirements
- The removal of the obligation to consult ‘Category 3’ persons during pre-application
These changes aim to improve the quality rather than the quantity of consultation, while still preserving fairness and transparency.
Judicial Review
The Bill makes provision to remove the paper permission stage for judicial reviews of NPSs and DCOs, and restricts appeals for cases deemed “totally without merit” at oral hearings. While the measure may reduce delays in theory, its actual impact is questionable. Courts rarely use the “totally without merit” in judicial reviews in a planning context. Much will also depend on the availability of judges with relevant expertise in DCO cases.
Part Two: Planning
The Planning reforms are aimed at enhancing the quality and speed of decision-making, primarily by devolving more responsibility to officers and reforming fee structures within LPAs.
Planning Fees
The Bill would allow LPAs to set their own planning application fees (provided that such fees do not exceed actual costs incurred by the LPA). The national fee schedule will be replaced, though the SoS would retain backstop powers to intervene where local fees are deemed excessive.
This long called-for reform will be welcomed by LPAs and will be particularly helpful in light of the potentially greater burden on LPAs to handle infrastructure projects that would ordinarily be consented through the DCO regime (mentioned above).
The trade-off for applicants is that, by paying more, they should expect a higher-quality and more responsive planning service. Doubtless that variations across regions are inevitable, but the localisation fees aligns with the principle of planning as a locally led function with resources varying.
Training Requirements
The Bill would require all LPA and mayoral authority members to complete certified training before taking part in planning decisions. This aims to raise the standard of decision making across the board, ensuring consistency and competency.
Given that most applications are already officer-led, it remains to be seen whether this will make a material difference – or lead to a increase in questions at committee by ‘expert’ members. It may, however, provide officers with more support when dealing with complex applications to avoid potential call-ins by the SoS.
National Delegation Scheme
The Bill introduces a national framework clarifying which decisions should be taken by officers rather than committee and seek to introduce smaller, more focused committees.
While this may streamline decisions, there may be concern that it could dilute local democracy from Members—elected (in part) to make planning decisions. Officers will also need to tread carefully to avoid members lobbying for an outcome of a particular planning permission that they would have ordinarily had a say in.
Alongside these reforms, the Government is separately reviewing the number of statutory consultees and exploring a new performance framework, which could introduce further changes to how applications are processed.
Part Five: Compulsory Purchase
The reforms to Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) are designed to support more rapid land assembly for housing and infrastructure, addressing both procedural delays and compensation-related challenges.
Several administrative and procedural changes are proposed, including:
- Electronic delivery for statutory notices
- Simplified newspaper notice requirements
- Delegated decision-making powers
- Accelerated vesting processes
- Updated loss payment rules
There is also an expansion of powers to remove ‘hope value’ - the uplift in land value based on assumed future planning permissions. This may be permitted in certain circumstances such as where parish, town and community councils are seeking to deliver affordable housing. Of course, a case in the public interest will still need to be established.
Conclusion
The Bill represents a broad and ambitious package of reforms. Crucially, the success of the legislation will hinge on capacity: both in central government to maintain effective oversight, and at the local level, where LPAs will need resourcing to meet the demands being placed upon them. As ever, the devil will be in the detail and in the delivery.
By Matthew Stimson and Tom Etherton
