Infrastructure Planning Blog

This week's entry looks at infrastructure planning-related cabinet changes made by new Prime Minister Andy Burnham, a consultation on extending judicial review reforms more widely than nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) challenges, Planning Inspectorate advice on reporting engagement in applications, the announcement of a review of three nuclear-related National Policy Statements (NPSs) and local government reform.

Three out of four new Secretaries of State

Following Andy Burnham's reshuffle this week, the four Secretaries of State in the world of Development Consent Orders (DCOs) are now as follows, the first time all four have been women at the same time:

• Angela Rayner (returns to Housing, Communities and Local Government)
• Miatta Fahnbulleh (Energy Security and Net Zero)
• Heidi Alexander (stays at Transport)
• Angela Eagle (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

Matthew Pennycook also remains in post as planning minister at MHCLG (but has been promoted to Cabinet) which, together with the promotions and remainers, should mean there is ongoing continuity so far as planning is concerned.

Consultation on extending NSIP judicial review changes

Having made changes to limit and speed up judicial review (JR) challenges to DCO decisions, the government is now consulting on extending the changes to other areas. The consultation runs until 17 August and the consultation document is here.

The proposals are to extend the same changes to major infrastructure projects and other strategically important developments consented under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Transport and Works Act 1992.

These would cover:

• projects that would have been NSIPs before 5 December 2024 but now aren't, e.g. 50-100MW solar projects
• projects directed out of the NSIP regime by the new s35B ability to do so
• projects consented by Special Development Order that are infrastructure projects

Transport and Works Act Orders are rarely judicially reviewed (but not never - a challenge to a recent one relating to HS2 succeeded, see blog 57).  The consultation asks if this might increase given the changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Of course, the number of limited cases of judicial reviews doesn't mean there is a limited case for reform: the mere fear of judicial review drives gold plating and risk aversion in the regime across both developers and decision-makers, so there is still likely to be a benefit in discouraging unmeritorious challenges.

The document also notes that "There may be a case for other types of developments such as significant housing developments (e.g. schemes with more than 150 homes) to also be in scope."

We have long been advocates for proposals to reform JR, and further measures are expected. Note, this consultation is distinct from the two recent DCO-specific proposals, including the parliamentary authorisation route. That route could be helpful if it doesn't lead to protracted parliamentary proceedings, and the carve-out for human rights claims is removed.

PINS advice on post-mandatory consultation applications

The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has sent out emails to prospective applicants for DCOs now that as of today (24 July), mandatory pre-application consultation has been abolished. All that remains is an amended obligation to notify certain parties under s46 and the issuing of notices under s48.

The email contains three points of particular interest:

• If not submitting a consultation report, you are asked to submit a 'short engagement summary' or failing that a 'Section 46 and s48 information' document to show how you have complied with s46 (notification) and s48 (publicity), the remaining engagement obligations
• You are asked to submit an advice log based on the attached template to show that you have had regard to s51 advice to you *and others*
• A new s55 checklist will be issued shortly that you can voluntarily complete and submit with your application

Are PINS really going to refuse applications for applicants not having regard to advice given to other parties?

Three NPS reviews announced

The government has announced via a Commons written statement that it is going to review the nuclear power National Policy Statement (NPS) EN-7, the geological disposal NPS, and also the former nuclear power NPS EN-6.

EN-7 was only designated seven months ago in the first place, but it is to be updated to reflect the recommendations of the Nuclear Taskforce (yes, them again). As a reminder, the recommendations of their report accepted by government included strengthening the critical national priority designation, embedding the principle of a fleet (standardised) approach, and revising the semi-urban population density criteria for site selection.

You may have thought EN-7 was a replacement for EN-6, but EN-6 is also to be updated. EN-6 applied to nuclear projects up until 2025, and is presumably being updated because of the new Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 obligation to ensure it is up-to-date. The key distinction between EN-6 and EN-7 is that the former is mainly site-specific, whereas the latter focuses more on criteria for determining suitable sites without naming any. That distinction may be overstated because even EN-6 allowed for the use of the criteria to determine further sites. Importantly, EN-6 is – according to EN-7 – "a relevant consideration for Development Consent Order applications for the sites listed in EN-6" – no doubt another reason for the update.

Local authority reorganisation

The government is abolishing two-tier local authorities and creating unitary authorities across England, which will be fully in place from April 2028. The total number of councils will reduce from 317 to about 170.

On 16 July boundaries in 14 counties were finalised, leaving only West Sussex and Cambridgeshire/Peterborough to be decided, although there are some legal challenges to the boundary changes in progress.

A lot of urban authorities are being expanded and often losing their names in the process – Oxford and Norwich will become 'Greater Oxford' and 'Greater Norwich' but Nottingham, Southampton and Portsmouth will disappear from names. A new Ridgeway Council will span parts of Oxfordshire and Berkshire.

This will obviously have implications for DCO applications and implementations so do keep an eye out for developments.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at July 2026.  For more information see our terms & conditions.