Reshaping national infrastructure consenting

The government published its Implementation Plan for Streamlining Infrastructure Planning (Implementation Plan) on 24 March 2026, which outlines proposed reforms to the nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) regime and sets out a target implementation timeline, with changes expected to be taken forward between spring and summer 2026.

In this article, we examine the principal reforms to the Development Consent Order (DCO) process under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (PIA) and supporting secondary legislation. We consider what these changes mean for promoters, landowners, investors, local authorities and stakeholders alike.

This article will be of interest to promoters of NSIPs, as well as those with land interfacing NSIPs who are seeking to understand the recent changes to the DCO regime designed to speed up the consenting process for NSIPs.

Mandatory five-year NPS updates

The PIA introduces a requirement for the relevant Secretary of State (SoS) to review and update each National Policy Statement (NPS) at least every five years. The intention is for NPSs to be a dynamically maintained suite of policy to reduce the risk of outdated policy shaping decisions on major infrastructure and avoiding protracted arguments at examination regarding the applicability of outdated policies to a particular scheme.

This five-yearly refresh is subject to a caveat that the period between NPS reviews may be extended in “exceptional circumstances”. In relying on this exception, the relevant SoS will need to lay a statement before Parliament explaining the reasons for the extension and stating when they expect the NPS to be amended by. It of course remains to be seen what circumstances will qualify as “exceptional” and how often this will be relied upon in practice.

Additionally, the PIA reforms the parliamentary procedure for amending NPSs, allowing limited or technical changes to be made through a streamlined process while retaining full consultation and scrutiny for substantive policy amendments.

New provisions for “opting out” of the NSIP regime

Complementary to the ability for promoters to opt projects into the NSIPs regime (where certain criteria under section 35 of the 2008 Act are met), the PIA introduces a new statutory mechanism (not yet in force and commencement regulations are awaited) which enables the SoS to direct certain projects out of the regime.

Opting out of the DCO regime will be possible where the SoS is satisfied that:

• It is appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to be used other than the NSIP regime.
• The applicant has provided evidence that the authorising body for such alternative regime is aware of the application.
• No DCO application has been made already.
• The proposed development will be wholly within England or waters adjacent to England (up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea), and/or a Renewable Energy Zone (except part in respect of which the Scottish Ministers have functions).

This introduces welcome flexibility to the regime to prevent a DCO application becoming a default pathway for borderline schemes. This will be particularly relevant for projects where the DCO process is seen as being disproportionate (in terms of cost or complexity), noting that planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) won’t confer any necessary compulsory acquisition powers, so a separate compulsory purchase order would need to be promoted alongside/following the grant of planning permission. 

Abolition of statutory pre-application consultation

Perhaps most notably, the PIA has introduced a fundamental change to the consultation framework for NSIPs by removing statutory pre-application consultation requirements, including the duty to consult with prescribed bodies and local communities prior to submission of an application. These changes are not yet in force, and no commencement date has been provided to date, but the government’s Implementation Plan confirms that provisions will be brought into force between late spring and summer 2026.

The repealed statutory consultation provisions (including section 42 to 45, 47 and 49 consultation) were increasingly viewed by promoters as a key contributor to protracted pre-application periods and procedural complexity without necessarily improving the quality of applications or outcomes. So, these changes will be most welcome in the industry.

Despite the removal of the need to undertake consultation on a statutory basis, the government has been clear that it expects promoters of NSIPs to use the newly introduced flexibility to take a proportionate approach to consulting with those affected by their proposals. It is expected that the government will consult on guidance that will set out its new expectations for pre-application engagement before the relevant sections of the PIA are brought into force. Until such guidance is issued it remains to be seen how truly different the pre-application consultation requirements will be in practice.

However, unless the anticipated guidance is clear that more limited consultation will be deemed sufficient for the purposes of accepting a DCO application for examination, and also provides details as to what such acceptable limited consultation will entail, it is likely that developers will be reluctant to move away from the previous established pattern of consultation to avoid risk that the DCO application may be rejected. Therefore, the practical impact of these changes to pre-application consultation are likely to be dictated by the quality and depth of the associated guidance. 

Streamlining judicial review procedures

The government has also targeted reforms to judicial review (JR) under the 2008 Act (including challenges to NPSs and DCOs made under sections 13 and 118 of the 2008 Act respectively) by removing the ability for the High Court to grant permission for JR on the papers alone, thereby requiring applications for permission to proceed with JR to be dealt with by oral hearing.

In addition, where the High Court certifies a claim as “totally without merit” at the said oral permission hearing, then there will be no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. These changes have been implemented (in force as of 18 February 2026) through staged amendments to Part 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules (removing paper permission) and section 18 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (removing appeals where a claim is certified as totally without merit), made by section 13 of the PIA.

For promoters of NSIPs, the implications of these reforms are likely to be mixed. The removal of the paper permission stage is intended to reduce delay caused by what has often been described as a “three stage” permission process, and to accelerate the disposal of weak, purely tactical, or vexatious challenges. At the same time, the reforms concentrate procedural risk at an earlier point, compressing what was previously a multi stage filter into one (potentially determinative) hearing. While narrowing the routes for onward appeal is likely to be universally celebrated by promoters of large energy and infrastructure schemes, this may not be particularly impactful in practice as only a very small number of JR applications have been deemed as “totally without merit” (in which case there would be no right of appeal at oral permission stage) in the recent past.

These reforms will likely serve to increase the premium on robust decision making at earlier stages of the consenting process, and on the quality of the evidence and reasoning underpinning consents secured under the NSIPs regime.

Strengthened approach to cost recovery

The PIA makes amendments to provisions under the 2008 Act that deal with application costs and examination expenses. This makes it more straightforward for the costs of running the NSIPs process to be charged to applicants by removing doubt as to whether public bodies can recover the cost of their work on major infrastructure schemes. In practice, this means applicants should expect to pay for pre‑application engagement, advice and examination work as a normal part of the process, rather than those costs being absorbed by the Planning Inspectorate or other authorities. The result will hopefully be a system that is more consistently funded, but one where promoters need to budget earlier and more realistically for planning costs as part of bringing an NSIP forward.

Additional provisions

Also of note are the following changes to the NSIPs regime.

The uplift of the solar NSIP threshold from 50 MW to 100 MW

Introduced through article 3(3)(b) of the Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025 which amends section 15(2)(c) of the 2008 Act and came into force on 31 December 2025). This means that mid-scale solar projects falling below the 100 MW threshold can now proceed under the TCPA regime rather than the DCO process (with transitional provisions, which provide that solar schemes below 100 MW that had been accepted for examination through the NSIP regime before 31 December 2025 are to remain within the NSIP regime, but schemes which are not yet accepted which fall below the 100MW threshold must proceed via the TCPA consenting route).

Local consenting is likely to be substantially less costly than the DCO route and may also serve to shorten programmes which will be welcome for smaller scale developers. One must temper that optimism, however, by acknowledging that a lot of local planning authorities are under-resourced and have less experience of dealing with energy schemes than PINS.  

Of benefit to larger promoters is that progressing more applications via the TCPA route should free up capacity within the NSIP system to deal with larger and more complex schemes. All of which will assist in the delivery of the government’s 2030 Clean Power strategy.

The re-incorporation of onshore wind into the NSIPs regime

Pursuant to Article 3 of the Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025, which amends section 15 of the 2008 Act (in force as of 31 December 2025). With onshore wind schemes to be subject to the same thresholds as solar schemes for the purposes of entering the NSIPs regime.

The requirement for the relevant SoS to issue a Statement of Reasons where a DCO application is not accepted for examination

Not yet in force, commencement regulations are awaited.

A greater importance being placed on the Examining Authority’s “initial assessment of principal issues” (IAPI)

With the Examining Authority being required to publish its IAPI within 21 days of the relevant representations deadline, and a requirement for procedural decisions to be made “in light of” the IAPI (under section 9 PIA, which amends section 89 of the 2008 Act (not yet in force, commencement regulations are awaited)).

Provisions to streamline survey access for promoters of NSIPs

By removing the requirement for SoS authorisation, broadening who can enter land for these purposes and introducing a warrant-backed route akin to that available under s173 of the Housing and Planning Act 2026 to overcome obstructions (under section 11 PIA, which amends section 53 of the 2008 Act (not yet in force, commencement regulations are awaited)).

Outlook for 2026 and beyond

Taken together, the reforms introduced by the PIA and supporting secondary legislation represent the most significant refresh of the NSIPs regime since its introduction under the 2008 Act. The direction of travel is clear: a system intended to be more agile, more transparent and more proportionate, while retaining the core features that have made the DCO process attractive to NSIP promoters. For promoters and investors, the changes offer genuine opportunities to shorten programmes and reduce costs.

A key theme of 2026 will be the implementation of these reforms, as evidenced by the government’s recently published Implementation Plan. There is likely to be a period of adjustment between now and the summer as promoters, decisionmakers and stakeholders test the boundaries of the new flexibility (particularly in relation to pre-application consultation requirements).

Those promoting NSIPs will need to stay alert to the evolving landscape (as will affected landowners interfacing with such schemes), but for well‑prepared schemes, the reformed regime offers the prospect of a more focused, faster and ultimately more predictable consenting process.

Our content explained