Infrastructure Planning Blog

Today's entry looks at the Government's new statistics on major projects, a court case on highways impacts, and how the new NPPF is being applied.

Baby Steps

The Planning Inspectorate has published its usual interesting data on nationally significant infrastructure projects. The statistics show that the average length of the pre-application period was 2.4 years in 2024, 2.03 years in 2025, and rose in 2026 to 2.58 years. Meanwhile examinations have seen some improvement (5.74 months in 2024, down to 5.31 months in 2026). Recommendations have risen (2.84 months in 2024 vs. 2.95 months in 2026). So it's a case of right, left, baby steps.

There is a significant limitation in the pre-application statistics: that period is "defined as the time from the inception meeting date to the date of application submission". Most developers, however, have been going at things for a period of time before the inception meeting, and most wise developers will time their inception meeting to reduce the potential costs of the pre-application service.

Nonetheless, the statistics are interesting, and it appears that, whilst the examinations are heading in the right direction, there are a few lights flashing on the other parts of the process.

For those interested in Government data, do check out the new "ALIGN" tool which is a new national infrastructure spatial tool that brings together data, models and tools, including AI, to identify local infrastructure needs and constraints for numerous housing, industrial growth and land use scenarios.

Monster Mash

It's a very exciting week for my co-blogger, Tom McNamara: MHCLG published guidance on the transition of Development Consent Orders and Transport and Works Act Orders to Lawmaker.

Lawmaker is the Government’s shared software for drafting legislation. It will replace the statutory instrument template currently used for DCOs and TWAOs. From the end of December 2026, the existing SI template will start to be withdrawn as Government moves secondary legislation onto Lawmaker. DCOs and TWAOs will then move across over the following months, with the transition expected to be complete before summer 2027.

Also tech-related, there is updated guidance on the use of AI for planning-related casework. The guidance permits the use of AI to draft or substantially rewrite text, produce summaries or analysis, and generate or alter images and videos, but requires parties to be transparent about how AI has been used and what checks have been undertaken to verify its accuracy. Stronger wording about the unreasonable use to hallucinate objections leading to costs consequences would, in my view, be welcome.

Fast Car

We have a recent High Court judgment on how to interpret the National Planning Policy Framework on highways impacts. Greystoke CB Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities, Housing and Local Government [2026] EWHC 1997 (Admin) concerned proposals for up to 140,000 square metres of employment floorspace near Junction 11 of the M40 at Banbury.

The Inspector found that the development would result in significant additional congestion. Importantly, however, he found that its residual cumulative impacts on the highway network would not be “severe”. Paragraph 116 of the version of the NPPF then in force said that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds where there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or where residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe.

It was openly accepted that neither threshold had been crossed. The Inspector nevertheless gave the highway impacts substantial weight against the development. They were the only harm to receive substantial weight and played the central role in the ultimate dismissal of the appeal.

Enter, stage left Mr Justice Coppel: that was unlawful. Where highways impacts were the principal or main reason for refusing permission, and the planning balance was likely to have been struck differently without them, paragraph 116 was engaged. The Inspector therefore needed to confront the fact that national policy said permission should not be refused on precisely those grounds unless the specified threshold was crossed.

More generally, this seems like an eminently sensible decision: a decision-maker cannot necessarily sidestep a protective NPPF threshold by placing the relevant harm into a general planning balance and allowing it to do substantially the same work there.

A lot of the judgment concerns whether the refusal was "on highways grounds". Note the new NPPF now says “Development proposals should be refused if they would have a severe adverse impact on the transport network… or an unacceptable impact on highway safety.” The word "only" is gone – would this have affected the result? We'll find out.

Unpretty

We have one of the first decisions interpreting the new provisions of the NPPF. For context, under S5(4) of the NPPF, countryside development which may affect its pretty character should “only” be approved in “exceptional circumstances” where its benefits “substantially outweigh” its adverse effects.

The Aston Clinton appeal is one of the first decisions to apply the August 2026 NPPF changes, with the Inspector concluding that a site can be very close to a settlement and have good access to services yet still fail the requirement to be "physically well related" to that settlement. Despite that finding, outline permission for up to 66 homes was allowed because the authority's housing land supply shortfall and the scheme's benefits were considered sufficient to justify development under the Framework's exceptional-circumstances provisions.

In particular, the Inspector said "You can buy all the make-up that MAC can make / But if you can't look inside yourself / Find out who am I too". No, wait, those are the lyrics to Unpretty by TLC. You will understand my confusion given that the Inspector actually said that 'not only would the proposal be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, it would also harm the setting and context of the village', but that the benefits of additional housing, modest economic benefits, improved energy efficiency and new public realm would be enough to constitute exceptional circumstances.

I'll bring you flowers (in the pouring rain)

Staying with the new NPPF, "Lifescape Project" has threatened a legal challenge to it because of the (alleged) impact of changes to biodiversity net gain provisions in Policies N1 and N2 of the NPPF. The argument, in short, is that the changes risk turning the statutory minimum 10% requirement for biodiversity net gain into a “practical ceiling”.

Meanwhile, with his sweet male attitude, my co-blogger BNGus Walker is hosting an event in our London office to coincide with the application of biodiversity net gain to nationally significant infrastructure projects on the morning of 2 November 2026. You will hear from him, Nick White from Natural England and the inimitable Mikyla Davidson from RWE. If you would like to join, please register here.

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