Consultation outcome

Consultation on streamlining infrastructure planning: government response

Updated 3 July 2026

Ministerial foreword

This government remains firmly committed to determining at least 150 major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. As of Friday 3 July 2026, 41 projects have been determined – 95% more than at the same point in the previous Parliament. Yet, as we have repeatedly made clear, honouring our commitment to determine at least 150 will require our NSIP regime to be firing on all cylinders. 

Building on the 2023 NSIP Action Plan, our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Act includes a range of provisions that will make it quicker and easier to deliver critical infrastructure projects. We have already commenced several of them, including National Policy Statement updates and changes to Judicial Review, and the benefits are being felt.  

Last autumn, we sought views on how best to implement the transformative reforms in the Act relating to the streamlining of consultation and consenting route flexibility, as well as other key proposals that support the application process for development consent under the Planning Act 2008.  

Having carefully considered the detailed feedback received, we are now setting out our analysis, policy response and the specific actions we will take to deliver the faster and more certain consenting process for critical infrastructure that we promised. 

While government has a critical role to play, the successful implementation of these reforms is ultimately dependent on applicants, practitioners, local planning authorities, statutory bodies, and local communities embracing and taking full advantage of the more flexible, proportionate, and responsive system that we are putting in place. We will support those who are willing to do so in any way we can so that together we can build the major economic infrastructure our country needs to thrive in the years ahead.

Matthew Pennycook MP
Minister of State for Housing and Planning

Executive summary

The government has a bold vision for streamlining infrastructure planning, and this response to our recent consultation is the next step towards delivering a better planning regime - one which directs participants to focus on achieving optimal outcomes for infrastructure, and enables applicants to apply more flexible approaches to delivery. Users of the NSIP planning process must not lose sight of the critical role infrastructure plays in powering growth, delivering positive environmental outcomes, enabling clean power and unlocking new homes.

Building upon changes made under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (PIA 2025) and taking account of the insights provided as part of our consultation last autumn, we want to continue to reshape the NSIP planning process and the experiences of those engaging with it. Our aim is a regime which has its foundation in clear legislation and enables focus on the relevant planning issues arising in each NSIP application. This should result in a golden thread in the handling of NSIPs from pre-application to decision, where the main issues are identified, examined and determined. This streamlining will speed up the NSIP planning process, increase certainty for applicants and interested parties, and ensure capacity in the system is deployed more efficiently.

Pre-application will be much less prescriptive, enabling applicants, the Planning Inspectorate, statutory bodies, local authorities, and communities to focus on developing and improving applications, as opposed to following unnecessarily detailed statutory processes. There will be no statutory requirement on applicants to consult prior to submission of an application, and consultation will not form part of the acceptance test. Instead, pre-application engagement will be undertaken flexibly by applicants to reflect the circumstances of proposals and the needs of individual stakeholders, with early conversations encouraged to inform design and achieve better outcomes. Clear guidance will outline the benefits of engagement and offer some recommended principles to follow but will not be prescriptive or set out detailed examples. It is government’s view that collaboration between industry, local authorities and other key bodies can usefully capture and share examples of new approaches to practice in line with reforms. Ultimately, the nature and extent to which an applicant chooses to engage during the pre-application period is a matter for their judgement and discretion.

Services provided by the Planning Inspectorate to support pre-application will be re-designed, with the focus on the provision of meaningful advice, earlier technical input from inspectors, and a greater convening role for the Planning Inspectorate to support well-developed applications, according to the needs of projects. Over coming months, we will work with practitioners, public bodies and others to develop a new delivery model which provides more flexibility for applicants. Applicants will be encouraged to work with the Planning Inspectorate to improve issues tracking through the entire planning process. This will start in pre-application with the Planning Inspectorate advising on the likely principal issues for examination and then inform the Initial Assessment of Principal Issues (IAPI) and approach to examination. This will encourage participants to focus action on the main issues and reduce later delay. While guidance will refer to documents that are commonly used to support applications, it will leave it up to applicants, with the support of the Planning Inspectorate and in line with regulations, to determine which are most helpful depending on the project. The Planning Inspectorate will pilot approaches in the pre-application stage, which can convey the main outstanding issues on applications to help inform later stages. We intend to put new pre-application services in place in summer 2027. 

The acceptance stage will focus on ensuring applications are of a satisfactory standard, with an understanding that the evidence and merits of the proposed scheme will be considered at examination and decision-making stages. Guidance will be clear that non-acceptance of applications, while still possible, should be rare. For the first time, guidance will encourage applicants to share applications with local authorities at submission, to enable them to undertake and complete Local Impact Reports (LIRs) or draft LIRs earlier in the process.

Guidance will set the expectation that the pre-examination stage should not generally exceed four months and will be used by the Examining Authority to make an IAPI focusing on the key matters upon which the examination will need to focus. This will be informed by Relevant Representations, as now, as well as LIRs (including draft LIRs) if relevant local authorities submit these alongside Relevant Representations after acceptance, as indicated above. While the IAPI will not contain any view on the merits of the application, it will provide greater certainty on the main issues arising on the application which are likely to require more detailed examination, including further interrogation and additional evidence, without limiting the consideration of other relevant matters. We will trial new approaches to the IAPI process and pre-examination and examination stages to improve clarity and transparency for parties. Guidance will also restate that the examination should be a primarily written process and clarify the differences between Relevant Representations and Written Representations.

Examinations will be more streamlined, conducted in line with examination principles, and clearly structured through the IAPI to support a clear focus on the main issues. Guidance will set out the government’s expectations for how examinations, and participation in them, should be conducted, based on a set of examination principles designed to drive behavioural change across the examination stage. Examining Authorities will be encouraged to trial new approaches to examination and use of the IAPI, including updating applicants and relevant parties partway through the process on which issues have been sufficiently addressed, those that remain outstanding, and any new issues to explore further. This will reduce surprises in recommendation reports and provide opportunities for resource-constrained public bodies to focus their efforts on the main issues. Whilst examination should be a primarily written process, guidance will make clear that where Examining Authorities require specific input from relevant public bodies and local authorities through hearings, their attendance is expected. Compulsory Acquisition requirements will be made more proportionate in cases where changes are required after the application has been accepted for examination, to limit the duplication of certain stages during examination, whilst ensuring those impacted are provided with a fair and transparent opportunity to engage with those changes. It is expected that recommendations from Examining Authorities will be more predictable, building on the policy-led narrative and focus on the main issues clearly communicated to all parties throughout the process.

New decision stage guidance will clarify the process involved in making decisions on NSIP applications, and provide clarity on the judicial review process, taking account of recent changes introduced in the PIA 2025. This guidance will also make clear that extensions to the length of the decision stage should be exceptional and will set out the process to be followed in the case of an extension. We will explore feedback loops, working alongside industry, the Planning Inspectorate and government decision-making departments to ensure lessons across the entire planning process are captured and actioned, to increase the efficiency of the system.

Whilst streamlining the NSIP regime will support more efficient use of resources, we know that further action is needed to address capacity and capability issues in statutory bodies and local authorities. We are contributing £15 million of additional resourcing to the Planning Inspectorate, enabling them to expand their inspector numbers, and are building the pipeline of professional planners through our expanded Pathways for Planning scheme. We are now taking steps to further improve the performance of public bodies in the planning system by allowing cost recovery for their services in NSIP planning process, and exploring opportunities to ensure additional funding equals better performance.

Beyond the NSIP regime, we are also supporting a more streamlined approach across the planning system, by removing mandatory pre-application consultation requirements that currently apply to certain onshore wind projects in England seeking planning permission through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This will support the government’s ambitions for onshore wind in England, further levelling the playing field for a technology that is key to delivering Clean Power 2030. Existing guidance will play an important role in supporting effective community engagement, while allowing this to happen in a proportionate and less prescriptive way.

By making these changes to streamline the process for all schemes, we can accelerate the system for all projects. We will also consider future options for a separate ‘fast-track’ policy, recognising that reforms to this process are needed. Taken as a whole, these changes will deliver faster decision-making by making the system operate in a more consistent, focused and proportionate way, and by making efficient use of resources.

We are implementing our comprehensive legislative and non-legislative reform package as swiftly as possible, to benefit major infrastructure projects within this Parliament. Where our PIA 2025 reforms did not require associated secondary legislation and were not part of the Streamlining Infrastructure Planning consultation, we have acted swiftly: new requirements for reviewing NPS (sections 1 and 2 of the PIA 2025), and parliamentary processes relating to these, were commenced on 18 February 2026, with guidance recently published. Provisions which remove the paper permission stage for judicial reviews of NPS and Development Consent Orders and remove the right to appeal for cases deemed totally without merit at the oral permission hearing are in place. We have already started to see the benefits of this package of reforms. The NSIP judicial review reforms, once fully implemented, will help to save up to 6 months of court time for cases which progress through the substantive hearing and appeal stages.

Alongside this response, we are laying relevant supporting secondary legislation before Parliament, and will shortly publish (in final form) our revised suite of National Infrastructure Planning Guidance. This will enable key reforms to commence on 24 July 2026 (at which point the new suite of guidance will come into effect). From summer 2026, we will trial and implement new approaches. We plan to make the necessary legislative and guidance changes to reform compulsory acquisition processes, implement a new process for post-consent changes, and support the greater use of model provisions in 2027. We will work across government and with the PAS and its local authority network, the NIPA, and other key stakeholders, as we implement all reforms.

Purpose of this consultation

In December 2025, the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (the ‘PIA 2025’), which amends the Planning Act 2008 (the ‘Planning Act’), received Royal Assent. Part 1 of the PIA 2025 reforms the infrastructure planning process, introducing major changes to the planning process for NSIPs. These reforms focus on tackling delays to determining major infrastructure projects, and makes targeted changes to support proportionality and speed at each stage of the NSIP planning process under the Planning Act.

Government must now implement the PIA 2025’s measures through secondary legislation and guidance, make improvements to aspects of the legal framework, reform the services from the Planning Inspectorate and collaborate with all system stakeholders to drive behaviour change which supports more proportionate approaches in the planning process. In September 2025, the government launched a consultation seeking views on implementing the PIA 2025 alongside further changes to guidance, secondary legislation and services to support a more streamlined planning process.

This response sets out government’s policy position on the areas covered in the consultation and takes account of the responses to the consultation.

We are grateful for the constructive way in which stakeholders have worked with us so far and look forward to this continuing as we deliver our reforms.

Introduction

The Streamlining Infrastructure Planning consultation sought views on changes to guidance, services operated by the public sector and secondary legislation under the Planning Act to streamline the planning process for NSIPs.

The proposals and 48 consultation questions were arranged under 5 principal headings as follows:

• Chapter 1: Pre-application
• Chapter 2: Acceptance
• Chapter 3: Pre-examination and examination
• Chapter 4: Reforming NSIP services
• Chapter 5: Mandatory pre-application requirements under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

138 responses were received in total. The breakdown of the type of respondent, as from the survey responses, was as follows:

Type of respondent	Number
Applicant / developer	33
Local authority	24
Professional association / industry representative body	23
Community group, civil or environmental organisation	15
Consultant / practitioner	13
Other	12
Individual (not on behalf of an organisation)	9
Government body	6
Parish / town council	2
Legal expert	1

There were varying numbers of responses to each question. For multiple-choice questions, the percentages assigned to responses are based on the number of substantive answers to that particular question, not the total number of overall responses.  

The government response document follows the order of the chapters as set out in the consultation document. Under each chapter there is:

• a recap of the consultation questions
• where applicable, charts showing the responses given to multiple-choice questions
• a headline summary of the responses received to questions within chapters
• a statement of government’s intended policy in response

A detailed question by question analysis can be found in the Annex.

Methodology

The consultation was published on GOV.UK and ran from 1 September 2025 to 27 October 2025. Responses to the consultation were received through a survey on Citizen Space (a third-party citizen engagement platform) and by email.

Email responses were manually uploaded to Citizen Space and answers divided into relevant question headings where respondents had not done so themselves. Data was then downloaded and processed to remove duplicate responses, correct obvious categorisation errors or omissions and remove non-substantive entries such as ‘no comment’. Where respondents requested that analysts refer to their responses elsewhere in the consultation as context to a given answer (for example ‘please see response to question x’) the wider responses were copied into the relevant answer box. This ensured that the subsequent analysis took into account the full depth of views expressed.

To aid in identifying themes and patterns across the sector, respondents were grouped into the following categories:

• applicant / developer, professional association / industry representative body, consultant / practitioner and legal expert = industry bodies
• local authority, parish / town council = local government body
• government body = government body
• community group, civil or environmental organisation = community group, civil or environmental organisation
• individual (not on behalf of an organisation) = individual
• other = other

After combining the respondents, and correcting obvious categorisation errors or omissions, the respondent types were as follows:

Type of respondent	Number
Industry bodies	73
Local government body	29
Government body	7
Community group, civil or environmental organisation	18
Individual	11
Other	0

To improve efficiency and increase objectivity, Microsoft Copilot, an AI-powered tool, was used to assist with the analysis of responses, including through identifying themes in the views expressed by respondents and tagging responses by theme. Microsoft Copilot is fully approved for use within the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Officials undertook training in its effective use and followed official guidance. This was paired with robust human review and control at each stage of the analysis to ensure that outputs were accurate. Policy officials analysed question responses and used the outputs from Microsoft Copilot to support and develop their own analysis. Consistent, thorough quality assurance was carried out on all Microsoft Copilot analysis to ensure it met the minimum required standard. Themes for each question have then been addressed in order of prevalence within the question-by-question analysis in the Annex and used to manually draft the summaries and insights used in this publication.

This response and the Annex provide a summary of the consultation responses received. It does not attempt to capture every point made, nor does it cover aspects of policy that fall outside the scope of the consultation.

Personal data collected as part of the consultation was processed securely in accordance with the personal data statement published in the consultation. Personal data was manually removed from working documents before analysis began. Enterprise-level data protection applied to all data inputted into Microsoft Copilot, meaning responses were not used as training data for future AI models (foundation models) and were subject to a high level of security protection.

Chapter 1: Pre-application

Introduction

This chapter outlines the government’s response to consultation feedback on proposed changes to the pre-application stage, particularly in relation to:

• the contents of guidance the Secretary of State must issue to assist applicants, setting out what is considered best practice in terms of the steps they might take in relation to a proposed application, in readiness for submitting an application
• how guidance can support effective notification requirements
• how changes to regulations and guidance can ensure publicity requirements capture a wide audience.

Guidance for applicants preparing applications

Prescriptiveness of guidance and collaboration outside the NSIP process

Question 1

Please provide views about the potential risks and benefits of government producing more prescriptive or less prescriptive guidance about pre-application consultation and engagement in absence of statutory requirements. In particular, we are interested in views on how guidance on engagement can support an efficient, faster, proportionate and effective NSIP process or whether doing so risks undermining the potential time and cost savings. 

Question 2

Should guidance note that collaboration outside of the NSIP process can help to address wider challenges that could otherwise impact development proposals? If so, what should it say?

Responses under this chapter showed varying views on prescriptiveness but common ground on the value of early, proportionate engagement with communities, landowners, local authorities and public bodies. Many respondents asked for clear, proportionate guidance that sets expectations and provides enough certainty to prevent risk averse practices (or “gold-plating”), without step-by-step prescription. Views were also strongly supportive of recognising collaboration and relationship-building outside the formal NSIP planning process, particularly where it helps to:

• improve communication with stakeholders
• identify and resolve issues relating to permitting, licensing, environmental constraints and local concerns
• co-ordinate grid and utility planning
• jointly handle cumulative impact issues

However, some respondents made clear their resistance to such collaboration evolving into a new obligation or requirement as part of the acceptance test.

Government response

We recognise that there are different opinions on the level of prescriptiveness that should be included in government guidance. We will publish concise guidance under section 50(2) of the Planning Act to assist applicants setting out what is considered to be best practice in terms of steps they might take in preparing Development Consent Order (DCO) applications. The guidance will be principle-led, outcomes-focused, and will not include detailed case study examples. We recognise, however, that there may be value in collaborative work involving stakeholders, such as the National Infrastructure Planning Association (NIPA), other industry representatives, key public bodies, and the Local Authority Planning Advisory Service (PAS) to capture existing good practice and consider how a series of case study examples of effective approaches to engagement and consultation can be developed and shared.

The guidance will set out the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders across the process, and set out for applicants the benefits of undertaking early, meaningful and constructive engagement and consultation tailored to the nature, scale, local characteristics and complexity of each project.

The guidance will also recognise that proportionate collaboration outside the formal NSIP planning process can help address wider challenges to delivery. To preserve flexibility, and avoid the reintroduction of consultation requirements, engagement and consultation will be encouraged but will not be considered as part of the statutory acceptance test under section 55 of the Planning Act.

Factors for applicants to consider in preparing applications

Question 3

Would it be useful for applicants to consider these factors (prioritising frontloading, proportionality, openness and transparency, and timeliness) while preparing their applications and in particular in relation to any non-statutory engagement and consultation (at paragraph 19)? What changes or additions to these draft factors would you welcome?

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	91%
No	4.5%
Don’t know	4.5%

Most respondents (91%) supported using the factors detailed in the consultation (prioritising frontloading, proportionality, openness and transparency, and timeliness (Factors)) as a helpful framework to refer to when preparing DCO applications.

Respondents most often:

• asked for clearer expectations of what “proportionate” means so it is not interpreted as minimal engagement;
• endorsed frontloading to improve application quality while allowing flexibility;
• stressed the value of openness and transparency about what stakeholders can and cannot influence and how views are considered; and
• emphasised timing that allows meaningful input, the provision of accessible information and reasonable response periods for stakeholders.

Some respondents also suggested new principles on inclusivity and accessibility, responsiveness to feedback, clarity on roles and responsibilities, environmental integration, and alignment with established consultation standards such as the Gunning Principles to ensure fairness and transparency. A number of respondents referred to the Factors as principles that should be considered during the preparation of applications.

Government response

To reflect this, government intends to reframe the Factors as ‘Principles’, establishing overarching considerations for applicants in preparing applications. We recognise the helpful and positive behaviours and approaches covered in responses and have considered the case for expanding the list. However, given that feedback has confirmed that the proposed four Principles are very well supported, we intend to retain this number and will confirm these in guidance. This approach will maintain a frontloaded, flexible process built on well-developed applications and encourage meaningful, transparent and timely engagement.

As we set out in our response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025, we will seek to support the principle of frontloading, and greater efficiency within the process, by setting out clear expectations in new forthcoming guidance about when model provisions should be used and what those provisions are intended to address. Guidance will build on applicants’ positive experience of the Infrastructure Planning (Model Provisions) (England and Wales) Order 2009, even though these have not been in force since 2012. Using model provisions will allow applicants and stakeholders to engage more consistently on matters that commonly arise across NSIPs and applications. This should reduce the time spent debating and scrutinising provisions during examinations. To support the design of the guidance on these model provisions, we will engage with stakeholders and bring forward the new guidance in summer 2027.

The benefits of non-statutory engagement and consultation

Question 4

Do you agree guidance should set out at a high level the benefits of non-statutory engagement and consultation? Are there any benefits not listed which we should include?

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	90%
No	4%
Don’t know	6%

Question 5

Should guidance encourage collaboration between applicants, stakeholders and statutory bodies? If so, what should it say? We particularly welcome views on how collaboration can prevent delays and the role for the sector to work collaboratively with stakeholders and how government can support this.

Respondents consistently recognised the value of early, proportionate engagement before submitting a DCO application and showed strong support (90%) for the high-level benefits of non-statutory engagement and consultation to be set out in guidance. Key benefits included the early identification of issues, building community understanding, and narrowing areas of disagreement to streamline examinations. Some respondents also linked early engagement to transparency and public trust.

Respondents recognised pre-application consultation, engagement and collaboration as helpful ways to surface and close issues earlier so that examination can be focused on matters that remain in dispute. Some respondents suggested practical ways to support this, including the use of shared issue or risk logs, clearer setting out of the roles and expectations of applicants, public bodies and other stakeholders, guidance on proportionate response windows, and early coordination where projects interact. Some respondents were concerned about the risks of overly prescriptive guidance on engagement and consultation and that capacity constraints often serve to limit public bodies’ ability to collaborate.

Government response

In response, we will publish guidance that:

• clearly sets out the benefits of non-statutory early engagement and/or consultation, with a focus on approaches to engagement and consultation that are proportionate, targeted and result in meaningful outcomes with a clear-sighted focus on key planning issues
• notes the value of sustained dialogue with stakeholders alongside time-bound consultation exercises
• makes it clear that:
  • applicants can use their discretion to tailor engagement and consultation to the location, nature, complexity, stakeholder type, and stage of their project
  • early, open, and accessible engagement and/or consultation is strongly encouraged, enabled through sharing sufficient but proportionate detail on proposals with communities, landowners, local authorities, and public bodies
• emphasises the importance of accessibility and inclusion so that affected groups can participate meaningfully
• recognises the benefit of constructive and timely participation by all parties
• encourages early and collaborative issue resolution and the proportionate use of practical tools to record progress and identify how disagreements have been narrowed before submission

The role of different stakeholders and statutory bodies at pre-application

Question 6

Should guidance include advice to local authorities, statutory bodies and applicants on finding the right balance between engaging early and engaging with sufficient technical information without creating unnecessary delay? We would also welcome comments on whether and how guidance could encourage applicants, local authorities and statutory bodies to work together to most effectively manage resources in their engagement. 

Respondents generally supported guidance that would help parties find the right balance between engaging early and providing enough technical information to make that engagement worthwhile. There was an emphasis on the importance of engaging early to help shape projects meaningfully, supported by further engagement when sufficient technical information is available, and which is tailored to the audience and the relevant process stage. A strong theme was resourcing, particularly relating to capacity constraints of local authorities and public bodies (including statutory bodies). There were requests for clear cost recovery arrangements, such as Planning Performance Agreements (PPAs) and clearer expectations around response times. Some respondents warned against overly prescriptive rules which may lead to repeated consultation rounds.

Government response

In response, we will publish guidance that:

• includes advice to local authorities, public bodies, other stakeholders and applicants on finding the right balance between engaging early and engaging with sufficient technical information
• recognises the value of an iterative approach to pre-application engagement. In some cases, applicants may find it useful for this to take the form of:
  • early, options-based engagement when proposals can still change (in advance of a design freeze)
  • more detailed engagement on technical information and potential impacts with stakeholders to work on resolving issues prior to examination, supported by topic-specific working groups and/or workshops as appropriate
• where appropriate, encourages joint-working arrangements and collaboration (such as lead authority approaches) during pre-application engagement to support the effective use of resources and to avoid duplication
• encourages applicants to:
  • provide concise information in a programme outline (currently known as the Programme Document) shared with the Planning Inspectorate at the commencement of the pre-application stage. This should sequence who will be engaged, when, and on what, and be aligned to design and assessment milestones
  • use accessible, options level material for communities that explains what can be influenced

Engagement and consultation with statutory bodies

Question 7

Is guidance needed to support applicants to identify which statutory bodies should be consulted based on the potential impacts of the proposed application? If so, what should that guidance include? 

Question 8

Would additional government guidance on engagement with statutory bodies regarding environmental requirements be of value, in addition to the advice and guidance provided directly by those organisations? How can guidance support constructive engagement by statutory bodies? Please provide details on what would be most useful in government guidance relative to what is provided to other relevant organisations.

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	90%
No	4%
Don’t know	6%

Most respondents supported clear, principle-based guidance to help applicants identify and engage the right statutory bodies outside of the formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scoping process, while cautioning against prescriptive lists that could recreate the burdens of statutory consultation. However, some respondents suggested maintenance of a centralised digital list of statutory bodies and undertakers clearly structured by sector, geography and type of development could aid consultee identification and give applicants confidence that their consultee lists are robust. Support was also given for Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to identify relevant stakeholders based on the geographic footprint of a proposed development. The majority of respondents (74%) agreed that additional guidance on engagement with statutory bodies regarding environmental requirements would be of value. This included requests for consistent expectations on what should be shared at each stage, and the provision of examples and templates to clarify information requirements. Some responses noted that guidance should complement, not duplicate, advice from statutory bodies. Respondents asked that guidance encourages iterative information sharing rather than the approach which has emerged over time with lengthy Preliminary Environmental Information Reports (PEIRs), with several noting capacity constraints and the need for timely, solution-focused input.

Government response

We agree there are benefits in sharing information, particularly information which helps reduce complexity and the resources needed to support the preparation of an application. Understanding ways to better support applicants to identify statutory bodies and other relevant stakeholders is important and we will consider options available for this as part of the re-design of pre-application services. We will publish principle-led guidance that will:

• explain how applicants should identify relevant statutory bodies by potential impacts and geography
• provide signposts to up-to-date advice from statutory bodies
• encourage ongoing engagement between statutory bodies and applicants, as well as with the Planning Inspectorate
• support the sharing of information on a more iterative basis throughout project development
• recognise the benefits of sharing a proportionate level of environmental information, noting that the examination provides an opportunity for detailed consideration, required to make engagement efficient and transparent, noting that specifics will vary on a case-by-case basis, and reiterate PEIRs are no longer required
• restate that requirements under environmental legislation, such as the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, must still be adhered to

Engagement and consultation with local authorities

Question 9

Is guidance needed to support proportionate, effective and constructive engagement from both the applicant and local authorities? If yes, what should such guidance cover?

Respondents supported clear, principle-based guidance to enable proportionate, effective and constructive engagement on applications from both the applicant and local authorities. Some respondents noted:

• the importance of early and iterative ongoing engagement during the pre-application stage to allow local authorities and others the opportunity to influence scheme design
• it would be helpful for guidance to set out clear roles and responsibilities for applicants and local authorities, including whom applicants should consult or engage and when
• that guidance should comment on the proportionate engagement applicants should have with host and neighbouring local authorities on cross-boundary impacts, including consideration of joint-working models and lead-authority approaches

Government response

We will issue guidance, which applies throughout the NSIP planning process for applicants to consider, that:

• supports early, effective and proportionate engagement centred on relevant local authorities
• recognises the potential role for applicants to engage with local authorities on proposed methods of engagement and consultation on a voluntary basis
• recognises the potential value of transparent recording of engagement so stakeholders can see how views have been considered, but reiterates that there is no statutory requirement to produce a consultation report as part of a DCO application
• where appropriate, encourages joint-working arrangements and collaboration, such as lead authority approaches and particularly for cross-boundary projects, to support the effective use of resources and to avoid duplication
• confirms that technical engagement by relevant local authorities is without prejudice to views that may be expressed at later stages;
• sets out the role of relevant local authorities across the NSIP planning process and better supports them in preparing proportionate Local Impact Reports (LIRs) to help inform the Examining Authorities’ IAPI
• highlights the importance of timely, fair and transparent cost recovery by relevant local authorities

Engagement and consultation with landowners and affected persons

Question 10

Is guidance needed to encourage applicant engagement with landowners and affected persons in a proportionate, effective and meaningful way? If so, we would welcome views on how guidance should support engagement with landowners and affected persons.

Question 11

Should guidance support applicants to identify Category 3 people to be notified once an application is accepted for examination? If so, what should it say? 

Responses showed broad support for government guidance to help guide applicants on methods for engaging with landowners and affected persons in a way that is effective, transparent, and proportionate to the potential impact. Some respondents also made suggestions for plain language materials, multiple ways to participate, good recordkeeping and alignment with compulsory purchase principles set out in Guidance on the Compulsory Purchase Process. However, concerns were raised that prescriptive rules could reduce flexibility or create unnecessary alarm, with some respondents expressing that existing processes and publicity requirements already suffice.

On Category 3 persons, respondents generally supported guidance with clear criteria to support consistent, proportionate identification and also timely, accessible notifications explaining why a person had been identified and how to take part in the examination. Others warned that broad identification can confuse or cause distress to landowners, and some considered that guidance should be limited in the interests of streamlining.

Government response

We recognise the importance of providing clarity on ways applicants can engage with landowners and affected persons. We will issue guidance that encourages:

• applicants to identify and engage relevant landowners and affected persons early in the process, to help ensure those whose interests are affected are aware of proposals and to also seek to save time during the examination process by addressing and resolving issues, where practicable, before an application is submitted
• applicants to share accessible information about the potential scope and impact of the project and an indication, where possible, of the rights to be sought under the DCO application
• landowners and affected persons to engage during the pre-application period and, where possible, seek to reach voluntary agreement with the applicant on land rights prior to submission of a DCO application

In relation to the identification of Category 3 persons, guidance will support identification early in the process and notification once an application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate, including suggested notification content that explains the project, the reason for identification as a Category 3 person and ways to participate in the examination.

Engagement and consultation with the community

Question 12

 Is guidance needed to encourage applicant engagement with communities in a proportionate, effective and meaningful way? If so, what should it say? We would also welcome thoughts on how guidance can provide clarity and support engagement by communities.  

Most respondents supported guidance to encourage applicants to engage with communities in a proportionate, effective and meaningful way. There was strong support for clearer, outcome-focused guidance, including definitions of what “proportionate, effective and meaningful” engagement entails, and defined minimum expectations to avoid inconsistency between applications. Closely linked were expectations for early engagement and transparent feedback loops for applicants to demonstrate how community input influences proposals (“you said, we did”).

Some respondents also supported collaboration with relevant local authorities and parish or town councils to identify affected communities, as well as the use of clear, plain language materials, inclusive approaches for harder-to-reach groups, and a mix of in-person and digital methods of consultation and engagement. Some respondents asked for practical examples or case studies, and some respondents supported minimum standards or mandatory elements. Some concerns were expressed about removing statutory pre-application consultation, including the Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC), while a few respondents felt extra guidance was unnecessary.

Government response

We recognise that NSIPs can have a significant impact on the local communities that host the infrastructure. Sensitive and accountable engagement by applicants can help ensure DCO applications are informed and improved through critical insights into how a proposed development might affect daily life, the environment, and the character of the area. In recognition of this, we will issue guidance encouraging applicants to:

• engage with communities early to directly shape proposals
• engage with relevant local authorities and relevant parish or town councils to identify affected and harder-to-reach groups
• use an appropriate blend of in-person and digital methods to consult and engage with communities
• provide accessible information
• be transparent about what communities can and cannot influence during the pre-application stage
• provide succinct feedback to communities on the development of the proposals in light of their input

We recognise that key stakeholders, including the NIPA, other industry representatives, the PAS and its network of local authorities, and key public bodies may wish to consider how best to capture existing good practice and support the creation and dissemination of examples and other tools to support the development of effective approaches to engagement, which applicants may also find helpful.

Guidance and documents to support acceptance, examination and decision

Question 13

Should guidance continue to encourage applicants to use tools such as Issues and Engagement logs, and Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statements? Please comment on the value and scope of these documents for informing likely examination issues in light of the removal of statutory requirements for consultation. We also welcome views on any potential advantages or disadvantages for enabling a more effective examination if regulations required some of these documents to be submitted alongside an application.

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	81%
No	3%
Don’t know	16%

Question 14

Are voluntary evidence plans an effective way of getting input on environmental issues early to inform environmental assessments and identify suitable mitigation?

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	85%
No	3%
Don’t know	12%

Question 15

Should guidance set out the circumstances in which use of voluntary evidence plans might be beneficial?

Question 16

If guidance were to highlight the option to publish an engagement summary report, what might the potential advantages and disadvantages of this be? We would also welcome views on submitting this report alongside an application, especially what advantages and disadvantages there may be for a more effective examination if guidance encouraged or regulations required its submission.

Respondents (81%) broadly supported continuing to encourage Issues and Engagement Logs and Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statements (PADSS), often highlighting their value for transparency, and focusing the examination on unresolved matters. However, some respondents suggested a need to streamline formats and rationalise and simplify the tools used to inform examination issues to avoid duplication, particularly in relation to Statements of Common Ground (SoCG). Some respondents expressed support for an applicant-led single consolidated tool/integrated tracker to reduce duplication, resource burdens and complexity. A number of respondents supported the use of regulations to require the mandatory submission of PADSS and Issue Trackers (or a single tool to replace trackers, SoCG, and PADSS). Others rather supported a guidance-based approach to allow applicants the flexibility to decide which documents may be most beneficial.

On voluntary evidence plans, a small majority of respondents (54%) considered these can be effective for securing early input on environmental matters (especially for large-scale or more complex projects) and help identify potential mitigation measures. Some respondents stressed the need to avoid duplication with existing environmental assessments or a return to PEIRs, and to recognise resourcing constraints for public bodies. Most respondents (71%) agreed guidance should explain the circumstances in which voluntary evidence plans add value.

On engagement summary reports, most respondents saw advantages in transparency and a clearer audit trail for the Examining Authority, while warning against duplication, selective summaries or a voluntary measure becoming expected. Views ranged from support for a concise “you said, we did” summary to suggestions for a mandatory requirement in some cases.

Government response

Given the range of interests engaged in the NSIP planning process, we consider that examinations are best supported when applicants are transparent and adopt a risk‑management approach by clearly setting out points of disagreement, identifying where adverse impacts may arise, and providing a proportionate assessment of those impacts and proposed mitigations. This enables issues to be addressed early, rather than deferred.

We also recognise the concerns raised regarding the duplication of information across multiple documents which impacts timescales, resourcing, project costs and the clarity of information available. There is clear value in reducing duplication across documents. We do not want to be prescriptive about the way in which applicants share information with local authorities, public bodies (including statutory bodies), communities, the Planning Inspectorate and the Examining Authority. However, it should be clear within each DCO application that efforts have been made to minimise duplication and achieve proportionality and clarity. Government does not intend to introduce a requirement for the mandatory submission of Issue and Engagement Logs, or PADSS, however, we note the strong sentiment that PADSS (and also SoCGs) are a useful tool.

The way in which information is prepared and shared is constantly evolving, with an increasing move away from document formats towards the use of integrated trackers and other information and digital tools. In line with this, guidance will set out that the provision of the following information (rather than specific documents), alongside sufficient but proportionate details on proposals and expected impacts, can greatly underpin the smooth operation of the pre-application and examination stages:

• a programme outline agreed with the Planning Inspectorate at the Inception Meeting
• identified planning issues and how the applicant has sought to engage and address these
• areas of agreement with another party (or parties)
• areas of remaining disagreement with another party (or parties)
• at the point of submission, an overview of the main issues remaining for examination

Guidance will:

• encourage applicants to consider what information is most beneficial for individual projects, including a consideration of the main planning issues to be resolved, in discussion with the Planning Inspectorate
• recognise the value of voluntary evidence plans and identify indicative circumstances where they could add most value, such as complex, multi-consultee projects impacting on sensitive habitats
• set out how voluntary evidence plans relate to other assessments, such as EIA (under the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017), and Habitats Regulations Assessment (under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017)
• refer to the option to publish a short engagement summary, if applicants consider this adds value to the application, focusing on who was engaged, how feedback from public bodies, local authorities, communities, and landowners was considered, which feedback led to changes and which feedback was not taken onboard and why (while recognising there is no longer any statutory requirement to produce a consultation report)
• set out that adherence to the guidance is a matter for the applicant and does not form part of the acceptance test, however it does form the basis of best practice for submitting a DCO application

Through its pre-application services, the Planning Inspectorate will pilot different ways for applicants to capture and track issues so that this can support an effective and proactive approach in the pre-application stage. It is critical that the Examining Authority has a clear understanding of the applicant’s view of the key issues, to support its role making the IAPI during pre-examination. How such key areas of disagreement are highlighted is a matter for applicants to determine.

Enhancing notification and publicity

Notification of proposed applications

Question 17

Do you agree that requiring the following information in notifications to the Planning Inspectorate, host local authorities, and the Marine Management Organisation would be beneficial in enabling them to prepare for examination? What other information or documents could be encouraged through guidance? 

(a) Whether a proposed application is expected to be EIA development.

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	84%
No	6%
Don’t know	10%

(b) When notifying the Marine Management Organisation, whether a proposed application is expected to require a marine licence for any licensable activities.

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	72%
No	5%
Don’t know	23%

(c) Where the most up-to-date information is published and available to view.

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	88%
No	2%
Don’t know	10%

(d) Publishing the notification on the applicant’s project website.

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	85%
No	3%
Don’t know	12%

(e) Other. 

Question 18

Should guidance indicate a point at which the applicant should issue the notification? If so, at what should it say?

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	73%
No	10%
Don’t know	17%

Question 19

Do you agree that a specific format with contents requirements, would be beneficial to standardise this duty for both the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate when ensuring that this duty has been met (please specify why)? We would also welcome views on what further guidance may support this clarity.

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	68%
No	8%
Don’t know	24%

The majority of respondents showed broad support for requiring notifications to state: whether it is expected that the proposed development is EIA development (84%); whether a deemed marine licence is likely (72%); and where the most up-to-date project information can be viewed (88%). The majority of respondents favoured publication on an applicant’s project website in plain language and early notification once proposals are sufficiently formed (85%). The majority of respondents asked for a clear point for the applicant to issue notification (73%) and a specific format with contents requirements (68%). Respondents also asked for clear web signposting, indication of EIA status and marine licensing needs, early but proportionate timing for notification, and recognition of local authority resourcing and PPAs.

Government response

In addition to the notification requirements set out within the PIA 2025, which includes applicant details, intention to apply for a DCO, why DCO consent is required and a project summary with location or route details, the government will issue guidance that will set out the expectation:  

• for notifications to the Planning Inspectorate, host local authorities and, where relevant, the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to include the EIA status, whether a deemed marine licence is likely, and a single link to a live project webpage, with the notification also published on that webpage in plain language
• for notifications to be early enough to support the Planning Inspectorate and host local authorities to prepare for submission of the DCO application, identify necessary resources and thus reduce the likelihood of delays for the project, whilst avoiding premature or repeated notices
• for applicants to complete notification steps at least six months prior to submission of a DCO application, if not earlier (subject to any transitional arrangements)

Publicity of proposed applications

Question 20

Do you agree with the proposal to move to a ‘digital first’ approach by only requiring information to be made available for inspection online? Please explain why. The government would welcome information and data about any potential impacts, including equalities impacts, of this change.

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	61%
No	27%
Don’t know	12%

Question 21

What further guidance would support applicants to undertake effective publicity which enables transparency and public awareness?

The majority of respondents (61%) supported moving to a digital first approach for the inspection of information, but support was typically conditional on safeguards for people who may be digitally excluded. Concerns focused on inequalities in accessibility to digital tools and rural communities with weak internet connectivity. Views on effective publicity emphasised practical guidance that expects a clear project website as the baseline, alongside multi-channel publicity (digital and non-digital).

Government response

We will continue with a digital first, rather than a digital only, model and applicants are required to continue to adhere to the publicity requirements in the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009. Applicants should maintain an up-to-date project website as the primary source of information, with accessible content and plain language supported by maps and visual aids, and should provide reasonable non-digital access (for example, hard copies) on request or at local venues where needed to prevent digital exclusion. Guidance will set proportionate expectations for multi-channel publicity tailored to the local context and will encourage clear signposting to project websites and version control online so the most current documents are easy to find. Guidance will encourage the use of innovative interactive modelling where appropriate, paired with non-digital options such as notices and materials in libraries and community hubs. It will also support the use of plain language, with maps and visual aids, early and iterative engagement in affected places, and clear reporting on how feedback has shaped NSIP proposals.

Conclusion

The above measures will be incorporated into guidance that will:

• deliver balanced, principles-first and outcomes focused guidance with clear expectations, in order to improve clarity and proportionality at the pre-application stage for applicants and stakeholders
• encourage timely, transparent and proportionate engagement with stakeholders, in the absence of statutory pre-application consultation
• support applicants to identify the role of different stakeholders and public bodies, alongside local authorities, to ensure appropriate engagement occurs
• support applicants, landowners and affected persons to engage during the pre-application period and, where possible, seek to reach voluntary agreement on land rights prior to the submission of the DCO application
• encourage applicants to decide, in conjunction with the Planning Inspectorate, which tools are most suitable for their project to ensure duplication, resource burdens and complexity can be kept to a minimum
• set the expectation (subject to transitional arrangements) for all notification steps to occur at least six months prior to submission of a DCO application, to support the Planning Inspectorate and host local authorities to prepare for the submission, such as to ensure appropriate resource can be secured
• ensure that applicants continue to proceed with a digital first, rather than digital only, model for engagement, as per existing regulations, to avoid digital exclusion

It is the government’s view that there may be value in future collaboration between key stakeholders, including the NIPA, other industry representatives, key public bodies, and the PAS to support the development of new practice across the NSIP system, through sharing of examples and other tools to support effective new approaches to engagement.

Chapter 2: Acceptance

Introduction

This chapter outlines the government’s response to consultation feedback on the implementation of changes to the acceptance test under section 55 of the Planning Act and the use of section 51 advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate.

During passage of the PIA 2025, government decided not to proceed with two proposed changes to the Planning Act (as detailed in paragraphs 63 to 66 of the consultation):

• replacing the term “satisfactory standard” with “suitable to proceed to examination”
• introducing a corrective actions mechanism at acceptance where the Planning Inspectorate may seek further documentation or information prior to accepting an application for examination

The existing “satisfactory standard” test remains in place. As a result, these elements are not covered in detail here, unless still relevant to consultation feedback.

Respondents shared a wide range of views on how the role of the acceptance test and section 51 advice within both pre-application and acceptance could be made clearer, more proportionate and more consistent, while ensuring the process remains robust and transparent. The sections below summarise these views and set out how the government intends to refine guidance to support smoother and more efficient processes, and examination ready applications. They reflect the conclusions of the government response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025, including government’s commitment to aim to further minimise instances where an application for a DCO is not accepted for examination, and provide clarity on how the acceptance test should be applied.

Changes to the acceptance test

Question 22

What further advice is needed through guidance to ensure sufficient clarity about the test that will be applied by the Planning Inspectorate at the acceptance stage, and how applications can be prepared that will meet the acceptance test? What guidance if any should be provided to provide clarity about matters that are not tested at acceptance, in order to clearly establish the difference between past and future requirements?

Respondents were clear that the acceptance stage needs to be more predictable, consistent and easier to navigate. Many felt that the current process can feel opaque, with uncertainty around what constitutes a “satisfactory standard” which leads to over submission of documentation, inconsistency, and avoidable delay during the acceptance stage. This can result in the withdrawal of an application, in practice often occurring to avoid a decision being made by the Planning Inspectorate to not accept the application. Across industry bodies, local government and public bodies there was strong support for more consolidated, practical guidance that brings together the statutory requirements, government expectations and examples of good practice into a single, authoritative source.

Respondents also emphasised the importance of clarity and objectivity, particularly in how the acceptance test is applied in practice. There were suggestions for straightforward explanations of what information must be provided when submitting a DCO application, what can appropriately be examined later, and how completeness of application documentation should be judged without expanding the statutory test and placing more requirements on applicants. Respondents also stressed the need for technically coherent applications, especially in relation to environmental information, to avoid fundamental gaps where technical information emerges at examination.

Government response

We consider that the acceptance stage should operate with few, if any, surprises, enabling the Planning Inspectorate to identify whether the information provided in an application is of a satisfactory standard to be accepted, while aiming to further minimise instances where an application is withdrawn during the acceptance stage. Government encourages parties to engage constructively in pre-application so that applicants can get the inputs they need as they prepare applications, however, it is for applicants to judge when their applications are ready to be submitted.

Our wider changes to the pre-application process are designed to bring a major improvement across the NSIP system. A more effective and issues-focused pre-application phase will only work if it is supported by an acceptance stage that is proportionate and predictable. As pre-application becomes a more project-tailored exercise, in seeking to better identify likely examination issues early, the volume of material submitted with a DCO application is expected to reduce and become more focused on project-specific needs. Our reforms to the Planning Act pre-application and acceptance test processes are aimed at supporting the submission of well-developed applications.

Guidance will:

• set out the content an application must contain (as required by legislation), and what the Planning Inspectorate may take into account when considering whether the application is of a ‘satisfactory standard’, however, will make clear that the merits of an application will be tested at examination, not at acceptance
• note that the information necessary for the Secretary of State to make a robust and defensible decision will be sought during the process as a whole
• re-iterate that, in line with the removal of pre-application consultation requirements from the Planning Act, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State will not assess consultation as part of the acceptance test
• clarify that a focus of the acceptance test will be whether, at a high level, the application contains sufficiently clear information to enable effective, comprehensive and conclusive examination, recognising that there may remain disagreements between applicants and other parties on matters of substance

The government will promote the importance of early, open and constructive pre-application engagement, and encourage applicants to do so without concerns that open communication on preliminary issues will be a barrier during the acceptance test considerations. Where appropriate the Planning Inspectorate may use section 51 advice . A DCO application is likely to be accepted provided it is clear, information is coherent across the application documents, and it meets statutory requirements.

The redesigned pre-application service will be structured to support applicants to identify and satisfactorily address information gaps or other issues that could affect acceptance early on in the process, and also consider the potential key issues for examination. Further consideration of NSIP Services is set out in Chapter 4.

Overall, the aim of the PIA 2025 reforms to the acceptance stage is to support applicants to submit applications which are more project specific, reducing the volume of unnecessary information shared at submission, and making the acceptance stage more transparent while maintaining the bar for the statutory acceptance test.

Section 51 advice

Question 23

How can applicants outline how they have had regard to section 51 advice from the Planning Inspectorate when they submit applications, and what should be encouraged through guidance?

Respondents supported a streamlined yet traceable approach to demonstrating how applicants have had regard to section 51 advice. Across sectors, there was broad consensus that the approach to demonstrating applicants have had regard to section 51 advice should be concise, proportionate and embedded within existing documentation (such as a cover letter, Planning Statement, or embedded within the applicant’s version of the section 55 checklist) rather than creating a new reporting document obligation. Many supported a short signposting tool, such as a table or brief statement, that shows where each piece of advice has been addressed, with simple explanations where applicants have taken a different, justified approach.

Respondents highlighted the value of greater consistency, asking for light touch templates and clearer expectations that align with acceptance requirements. However, they also emphasised that any approach must preserve flexibility, where applicants should be free to diverge from section 51 advice where appropriate, provided they explain why. A number of applicants were keen to ensure that guidance makes clear that there is no absolute requirement that section 51 advice must always be followed, or that divergence could adversely affect acceptance decisions.

Government response

We agree that having regard to section 51 advice in connection with the application should be demonstrated in a concise and proportionate manner. But we do not intend to prescribe how applicants evidence this (for example, this information could be incorporated within the application covering letter, planning statement or other suitable submission information at the applicant’s discretion).

Guidance will:

• make clear that section 51 advice issued by the Planning Inspectorate in connection with the application (including the identification of possible deficiencies or insufficient information) is intended to support the submission of an application of a satisfactory standard
• clarify that section 51 advice will be sharper, and increasingly project-focused;
• set out that if an applicant chooses to diverge from section 51 advice, they should, as a matter of best practice, explain why this occurred
• clarify that a divergence from section 51 advice, which the Planning Inspectorate considers is justified, can remain compatible with having had regard to section 51 advice
• support applicants adopting a light-touch signposting approach as to how they have had regard to section 51 advice in connection with the application where appropriate
• clarify that section 51 advice will not be used as a mechanism to re-introduce expectations for statutory consultation, but, where appropriate, may include advice that applicants engage with certain public bodies where there are identified issues

For clarity, as part of the acceptance test, the Planning Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State must consider how the applicant has had regard to section 51 advice given in connection with the application. This does not mean the advice must have been followed, but rather the Planning Inspectorate needs to be satisfied that it has nonetheless been considered in preparing the application for submission. As part of this discretionary element of the acceptance test, the Planning Inspectorate may, for example, consider whether a divergence from section 51 advice has resulted in the application containing insufficient information (noting that the merits of the information will be considered at the examination stage).

Conclusion

Together the above measures will:

• clarify the “satisfactory standard” test at acceptance, with guidance setting out what an application should contain, discouraging unnecessary over-submission, and clarifying that the merits of an application will be considered at examination, not as part of the acceptance test
• reiterate the Planning Inspectorate’s ability to issue section 51 pre-application advice in connection with an application to address concerns raised by applicants, which will help create transparency in advance of submission
• reiterate that consultation will not be assessed as part of the acceptance test
• enable the acceptance of applications where issues with information and/ or documentation are capable of correction in the period after acceptance, prior to the application being publicised or prior to the start of examination
• make the acceptance test less burdensome for applicants and other stakeholders
• support applicants in light-touch, simple and proportionate demonstrations of how they have had regard to section 51 advice, rather than creating new reporting obligations
• aim to improve clarity and consistency of applications without restricting flexibility in the pre-application process

Chapter 3: Pre-examination and examination

Introduction

This chapter outlines the government’s response to consultation feedback on its proposals to improve the efficiency of the pre-examination and examination stages, by exploring:

• strengthening the role of Initial Assessment of Principal Issues (IAPIs) to focus examinations
• introducing guidance for local authorities about their role in examinations
• introducing greater proportionality in the examination of compulsorily acquired land as part of a DCO

Enabling sharper focus and stronger outcomes in the examination stage through focused IAPIs

Leveraging the benefits of the IAPI to enhance the examination stage

Question 24

What further steps should government consider to strengthen the role of the Initial Assessment of Principal Issues (IAPI), so that it supports early clarity for all stakeholders, procedural fairness, and a more focused and effective examination?

Respondents largely supported proposals to strengthen the role of IAPIs to focus examinations, viewing it as a central mechanism for actively shaping how examinations run, improving clarity, procedural fairness and the overall efficiency of examinations. Across sectors, respondents described a shared frustration with examinations becoming overly broad, resource-intensive and insufficiently focused on matters that genuinely influence planning decisions. Many respondents suggested that IAPIs should be focused on decision-critical matters rather than a generic list, yet respondents recognised the legal risk of excessively narrowing the scope of issues and undermining fairness. Industry bodies called for a more consistent approach towards IAPIs by Examining Authorities with a stronger procedural role in shaping timetables and hearings, while cautioning against over prescription that could encourage delay or legal risk.

Across groups there was a strong emphasis on the need for transparency, and flexibility, with many calling for earlier visibility of IAPIs and the ability for participants to be able to see how their concerns are considered within a more focused framework. Respondents across industry bodies and local authorities and public bodies also asked for clearer guidance on the purpose, scope and structure of IAPIs. However, in feedback to the consultation proposal about prescribing more through secondary legislation, including sharing IAPIs with the Secretary of State, respondents were not in favour of these steps.

Government response

Government agrees that clarity and transparency upfront about the Examining Authority’s approach to the examination can improve efficiency, shorten timescales, and make better use of planning system capacity. Through new guidance, we will provide clarity on the purpose, scope and structure of IAPIs to ensure they are consistent, tailored to the application in question, remain procedurally fair, identify the main issues arising on the application, and set the stage for a focused and streamlined examination while not limiting the consideration of other matters that the Examining Authority will continue to assess as part of the examination. IAPIs should be better able in future to shape the subsequent examination, recommendation, and decision stages, as we set out in response to recommendation of the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025. We will work closely with the Planning Inspectorate and across government to co-design new approaches, including to the format and content of the IAPI, within the current legal and policy framework, and identify good practice. If we consider new secondary legislation to be necessary to bring greater focus and consistency of approach to IAPIs, we will pursue this at a later stage, taking account of the responses to this consultation, working closely with other government departments, and reflecting how practice develops over this period.

We consider that, in future, an IAPI could be used as a wider tool to:

• explain how the Examining Authority intends to examine certain matters
• express what the Examining Authority considers are the key planning issues
• identify any planning issues for which further evidence is not expected to be required, with reasoning
• confirm the relevant National Policy Statement(s) (NPS) for the proposed development and highlight other NPS which are important and relevant to the decision
• refer to general approaches taken to examining similar issues which have arisen before

Reforms to the Planning Inspectorate’s pre-application services and new government guidance will support the development of a consistent issue tracking process, involving the applicant, the Planning Inspectorate, and other key parties. Its purpose would be to identify, track and monitor key planning issues throughout the pre-application, pre-examination and examination process, potentially using a Red, Amber, Green (RAG) ratings system. This will be developed in pre-application, to support issue identification and assist the Planning Inspectorate in its understanding of the scope of the project and to support its role working with key public bodies (including statutory bodies). Guidance will note that the extent to which issues have or have not been resolved between parties is a matter for the examination and not a criterion for acceptance. The outcomes of this issue tracking will be shared with the Examining Authority to inform its approach to the IAPI. It will involve an iterative tool which will be updated throughout the planning process. This could include a means to provide updates during examination. The IAPI will not contain any views about the merits of the application, which will be set out only in the Examining Authority’s recommendation report, structured to address the key issues identified in the IAPI.

Supporting effective examination through guidance for public bodies

Local authorities and local impact reports

Question 25

Do you agree that existing guidance provides enough information to aid local authorities in preparing meaningful local impact reports and should therefore be retained? If further information would be beneficial to be included within this guidance, what should it say?

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	48%
No	30%
Don’t know	22%

Question 26

Is existing guidance clear on the difference between a relevant representation, written representation and local impact report? What further information on the differences between a local impact report and relevant representation would be beneficial to assist local authorities?

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	30.5%
No	41.5%
Don’t know	28%

Many respondents (48%) agreed that existing guidance on LIRs is sufficient and should be retained. However, respondents from industry bodies and local authorities suggested guidance could be strengthened to support local authorities in preparing proportionate and focused reports, reduce repetition and duplication across submissions, and encourage more efficient practices. Respondents across all sectors specifically recommended clearer guidance that sets out minimum expectations, clarifies expectations regarding timings and deadlines to enable better resource planning, and encourages using practical tools (i.e., templates, examples, and comparison tables). They also emphasised the value of early engagement and earlier sight of key documents. Alongside this, resourcing and capacity were recurring concerns.

On the relationship between Relevant Representations, Written Representations and LIRs, 41.5% of respondents did not agree that distinctions are sufficiently clear in existing guidance. Respondents from industry bodies and local authorities asked for guidance that clearly distinguishes the purpose, scope, timing and status of these three documents separately, and clarifies the relationship between them. Industry bodies and community groups suggested that LIRs should remain objective and technically grounded and only comprise evidence-led assessments of local impacts, Relevant Representations should function as a “statement of case” and Written Representations as an opportunity for further detail (without raising new issues) with both providing space for a local authority’s political position. A number of respondents from industry bodies questioned whether there is an ongoing role and need for Written Representations.

Government response

We recognise the need for improved clarity and support for local authorities preparing for and participating in examinations. Our intention is to reduce duplication as much as possible, and we will therefore set out in guidance that Relevant Representations should be used to their fullest effect so that Written Representations, where needed, primarily provide further detail or supporting information on matters already raised.

Revised guidance will clarify the purpose, scope, structure and timing of pre-examination and examination documents, set out expectations, and identify useful tools where appropriate. It will distinguish LIRs as reports setting out the likely local impacts of the proposed development and to be submitted to the Examining Authority during pre-examination. Relevant Representations are the key opportunity during pre-examination for interested parties to present their principal submissions (and where practicable, the full particulars of the case) with evidence, with Written Representations, if needed, providing an additional opportunity during examination to give further details.

We recognise the critical role LIRs can play in evidencing the impact of proposed developments alongside wider environmental assessments. Current practice is for the Examining Authority to require submission of LIRs at an early stage in the examination as signalled in the Rule 8 letter. To optimise the impact of LIRs in the NSIP planning process, and strengthen IAPIs, we will clarify in guidance that local authorities should be invited to submit LIRs or draft LIRs earlier, so that these are available to the Examining Authority during pre-examination and can be used alongside Relevant Representations to inform the IAPI. The earlier submission of quality LIRs (including draft LIRs) will be reliant on good quality engagement between the applicant and local authorities. The guidance will recommend that applicants share their application with the relevant local authorities once it is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate (on behalf of the Secretary of State), prior to acceptance.

To better support local authorities and other key stakeholders, the government will work closely with the Planning Inspectorate to identify what is considered to be good practice when preparing and submitting LIRs or draft LIRs, and this will inform future guidance. We will also work with the PAS and its local authority network to support the development of tools including guidance to guide local authorities through the LIR process, focusing on resourcing, timing, coordination, drafting, structure and governance.

Guidance for public authorities on participation in examinations

Question 27

How can guidance seek to reduce existing barriers that public authorities face in engaging with the process?  

Question 28

What should guidance say to ensure public authorities engage appropriately with examinations? We would welcome views on how guidance can outline the circumstances in which public authorities are relevant to the application.

Respondents from industry bodies and local authorities emphasised that the main barriers to effective engagement by public authorities, including local authorities, are capacity, funding and availability of specialist skills, with several respondents noting that action is needed to remove these obstacles. They asked for clearer guidance setting out expectations and specifying roles and responsibilities. Respondents mentioned the value of practical tools such as templates, checklists and best practice examples. Many asked government to clarify that examinations should focus on material planning issues rather than other matters where the position is clearly set out in NPS, that hearings and attendance at these be requested only when necessary, and that the Examining Authority has an important role to play in better linking the approach and timetable for examination to the IAPI. Respondents also sought clearer, better planned examinations, including earlier publication of hearing agendas, better scheduling information and a broadly “written first” approach so hearings can be targeted and concise. Alongside this, many suggested more frontloaded, structured engagement and support for joint working between local authorities to reduce duplication and encourage consistency.

To encourage public authorities to appropriately engage with examinations, industry representatives supported setting stronger expectations for succinct, evidence-based, timely submissions, to avoid introducing new fundamental issues late in the process, and to attend hearings when requested by the Examining Authority, where specific matters cannot be addressed through written correspondence. Industry bodies also broadly supported the use of SoCGs, evidence plans and issue trackers as tools in front-loading the identification and resolution of issues.

Respondents across local authorities, public bodies and environmental organisations requested for guidance to:

• clarify when a public authority is relevant (for example, where a statutory function is affected), and help public authorities keep within their remit
• explain the weight to be given to public authorities’ input so effort can be targeted effectively
• include clear, standardised, and realistic expectations for the level of input (with templates or checklists where appropriate)
• allow for flexible hearing attendance to enable public authorities to allocate resource to where it is fully required
• support the early publication of detailed agendas for examination hearings and promote efficient scheduling of issues to streamline participation

Resourcing pressures remained a central theme across responses, with calls for guidance to acknowledge this, and for action including cost recovery and capacity building, as well as targeted training.

Government response

Alongside wider resourcing measures, there is a need for practical and proportionate guidance, which provides public authorities (including local authorities and other public bodies) with a clearer and more structured, but proportionate and flexible framework for engaging with examinations. We will revise guidance to set out clearer expectations on the roles and responsibilities of public authorities, signpost to standardised tools that minimise duplication, and promote earlier and more systematic engagement so that they can identify and prepare for the matters most relevant to their statutory functions. It will also support a more predictable and transparent examination process, including clearer timetabling, while retaining flexibility in how local authorities participate. Joint working between local authorities will be encouraged where this delivers efficiencies or a clearer statement of evidence.

A central element of the updated guidance will be a strengthened explanation of the formal engagement points available to public authorities throughout the NSIP application lifecycle, particularly from submission of the application through to the close of the examination.

The guidance will also include support for tools such as SoCGs, identification of key issues, and where appropriate, evidence planning – all of which seek to contribute to a focused and transparent examination.

To support this, the government will update existing guidance and work with representatives from public authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and the PAS, to identify ways to better support public authorities in understanding and implementing their important roles during the examination. This will reflect effective practice from recent experience of NSIP engagement across local authorities to better define the expected level of input, and the procedural and technical requirements associated with both the written and oral components of the examination.

Procedural flexibility for land acquisition amendments during examination

Question 29

Do you consider that regulations for compulsory acquisition as part of DCOs should, where possible, limit the duplication of procedures where land acquisition changes are required and to provide the Examining Authority with greater discretion to set reasonable timeframes to reflect the specific circumstances of each DCO and its associated land acquisition issue?

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	70%
No	4%
Don’t know	26%

Question 30

Are there any further changes that could be made to the infrastructure planning CA Regulations and supporting guidance to contribute to the streamlining of the DCO examination process by reducing repetition or timescales where changes to land acquisition are required post submission?

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	31%
No	12%
Don’t know	57%

Most respondents (70%) supported our proposal to streamline the process for land acquisition proposed provisions made post acceptance. This would enable proposed provisions for additional land rights and acquisition to be dealt with in a proportionate manner within the prescribed procedure set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Compulsory Acquisition) Regulations 2010. Respondents supported the proposal to amend the procedure depending on the complexity of the case in question, whilst maintaining fairness and transparency. An example of a straightforward proposed provision might be one where there are no newly affected persons.

Industry bodies and environmental organisations stressed that any streamlining must be underpinned by safeguards including that:

• newly affected persons should be able to participate meaningfully, with adequate time to understand the proposed provisions, seek advice and make representations
• any compressed timetables should be transparently justified
• where a compressed timetable is used, transparency as to how procedural rights, such as the ability to understand the proposed provisions, seek advice and make representations, have been considered

Alongside this, respondents asked the government to separate minor changes (i.e. those which require less significant changes to land rights and impact already affected persons) from substantial changes (i.e. those which comprise significant new land take or newly affected persons). Some respondents favoured having the core procedural requirements set out in secondary legislation to ensure legal certainty and minimise the risk of challenge, with guidance to provide practical examples and to support users understand how the process operates. It was suggested that this guidance might involve the use of scenarios and model-wording for targeted notices.

Respondents advocated a pragmatic approach to monitoring and examining land acquisition changes, citing the usefulness of land rights trackers and associated change trackers and the use of standard templates (for example, for notification and publication) where appropriate. There was support for a clear framework distinguishing minor, moderate and major changes after submission as well as consolidating related land acquisition changes into single submissions to help keep to examination timetables where practicable. There was support for retaining the ability to request a hearing.

Government response

We will amend the Infrastructure Planning (Compulsory Acquisition) Regulations 2010 to introduce a more proportionate procedure to examine changes to land acquisition requests made post acceptance. As detailed in the consultation, the key areas we will consider in order to make the procedure more proportionate in appropriate cases are:

• enabling the Examining Authority to incorporate the examination of the proposed provisions into the existing examination timetable as far as is possible
• introducing more proportionate timescales contained in the notice for submission of relevant representations to be provided, in certain cases
• limiting the duplication of certain stages during examination, where proportionate

Alongside amendments to the regulations, we will update guidance on proposed changes to compulsory acquisition submitted after an application has been accepted for examination to support greater transparency, consistency, and predictability in the handling of such changes. At the same time, guidance will maintain the position that those affected by such changes must continue to have a full and fair opportunity to engage in the process.

Guidance on pre-examination and examination of applications

Question 31

In addition to the changes highlighted in Chapter 3 of this consultation, what further changes to pre-examination and examination guidance would support efficient and effective examination of applications for development consent?  

Question 32

Are there further changes to secondary legislation – for example, the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 – which you believe government should consider to support effective and efficient examinations?

On further changes to guidance to support efficient and effective examination of applications for development consent, respondents supported tightening and simplifying both pre-examination and examination practice. Across both stages, respondents, particularly industry bodies and environmental organisations, asked for government to reduce duplication across submissions with clearer templates, consolidated issue trackers and a definitive list of examination documents to redirect capacity towards issue resolution. Respondents also asked for clarity on the purpose of SoCGs and PADSS and encouraged other tools including issue triaging and engagement logs to help narrow examination hearings and protect timetables. They requested clear and consistent guidance setting out expectations on attendance (including the Preliminary Meeting and examination hearings), service standards, cost-recovery (including promoting early PPAs) to help ensure the timely availability of evidence and narrowing issues before examination hearings, best practice for hybrid and/or digital hearings and examination documentation (including ‘examination-ready’ environmental material).

For pre-examination, many across all sectors supported early visibility of an indicative timetable once an application is accepted and the relevant representation window set, so that teams can plan resources effectively. For examination, they emphasised focusing proceedings on unresolved, decision-critical issues rather than re-examining matters already settled in policy, with better planned agendas for Issue Specific Hearings and appropriate attendance from regulators and public bodies (including statutory bodies), and less controversial matters handled through written-only procedures. There was also a strong preference for Examining Authorities to retain procedural flexibility, so that approaches can be tailored to project scale and complexity while remaining fair, and a recommendation for government to establish a proportionate route for handling minor changes with guidance setting out rules for weighting given to material not tested in hearings.

On whether any further changes to secondary legislation are required to support effective and efficient examinations, respondents stressed that current rules, as set out in the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 apply a “one-size-fits-all” approach regardless of project complexity, scale or level of controversy. Many raised concerns about the current examination process including: a lack of proportionality and flexibility for examinations and timetables; unnecessary duplication and procedural steps; limited transparency; and a continued reliance on hard-copy documents and physical notices. Respondents were also cautious of over-emphasising speed and warned that insufficient scrutiny could lead to increased delays and legal challenge. Respondents supported reviewing secondary legislation to strengthen the link between examination rules and proportionality, reduce procedural duplication, and improve transparency. Many suggested amending the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 to:

• set out clearer criteria for when simplified procedures, written-only processes, or reduced inspector resource may be appropriate
• ensure the Examining Authority takes account of discussions already held and focuses on areas of disagreement
• require statements on information sufficiency from Examining Authorities when submitting recommendations to the Secretaries of State stating whether there is sufficient information to enable the Secretary of State to determine the application
• require the publication of a register of unresolved objections
• clarify timelines, submission requirements and consultation responsibilities

Government response

We will streamline pre-examination and examination practices to ensure processes are more proportionate, focused, and effective, while maintaining the high standards of scrutiny expected of examinations.

Through new guidance, we will provide clearer, consolidated advice to help ensure that the pre-examination stage is proportionate and does not take longer than necessary, with a particular emphasis on preparations to support effective resource planning for the examination.

This will include capitalising on the benefits associated with planned reforms to the IAPI stage. As set out in the government’s response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025, guidance will set expectations with applicants that time spent at the pre-examination stage should not generally exceed 4 months.

For the examination stage, we will support an approach that is built on the Planning Act’s foundation: NSIP examination is primarily a written process and will be conducted in line with the new examination principles. Examinations will be driven by the IAPI and support the proportionate, efficient and targeted consideration of applications. In practice, less complex matters are expected to be addressed through written submissions and hearings, when needed, should be focused on unresolved issues that are material to the decision. Procedural flexibility will be maintained so that examinations can be tailored to the scale and complexity of individual projects, and so that all relevant matters can be appropriately considered.

We will publish updated guidance that sets clearer expectations for good practice in the preparation and conduct of hearings, including early and meaningful notice and agendas, to maximise opportunities for parties to arrive prepared and equipped with the appropriate expertise to deliver effective and constructive outcomes.

Improved engagement and feedback loops between the Planning Inspectorate and key parties involved in examinations will support the development of improved examination practice across parties, and inform considerations about the extent of further legislative changes to the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010.

Together, these reforms will help ensure examinations are efficient, fair, and equipped to support timely, well evidenced decision-making.

Conclusion

Together, the above measures will:

• support a transparent, proportionate and flexible approach to examinations within a more focused and considered framework, limiting risk of delay and legal challenge without being too prescriptive and rigid
• deliver guidance that improves clarity for those engaging in examinations, encourages a more consistent and proportionate approach to submissions, supports local authorities in preparing proportionate LIRs that objectively assess key local impacts, and reduces duplication in documentation
• introduce LIRs earlier in the process, positively contributing towards strengthening the role of IAPIs and promoting proportionate examinations, providing a space that encourages earlier and more meaningful engagement between local authorities and applicants, which will help local authorities better plan for resources
• identify ways to further support local authorities in understanding and implementing their important roles under the reformed requirements, including through engagement with the PAS and other key stakeholders
• support greater transparency, and proportionality in the handling of compulsory acquisition changes across the NSIP planning process
• help to ensure examinations are efficient, fair, and equipped to support timely, well evidenced decision making by the Secretary of State following receipt of the Examining Authority’s recommendation report
• enable the preparation of Examining Authorities’ recommendations structured on the basis of the IAPI

Chapter 4: Reforming NSIP services

Introduction

This chapter outlines the government’s response to consultation feedback on proposed changes to NSIP services, particularly in relation to:

• what our objectives for reform of pre-application services at the Planning Inspectorate should be
• whether and how the priority given to certain projects and/ or sectors should be reflected in future services
• the services offered by statutory bodies, and local authorities, and their resourcing
• options for the future of the fast-track process, including: re-designing this so that faster processing is available to a greater number of projects, updating guidance to reflect project suitability including the priority accorded to projects, amending the quality standard, and enabling a stronger coordination role for government and statutory bodies

Pre-application services

Refocusing the Planning Inspectorate’s services for all projects

Question 33

Is government correct in seeking to reframe the pre-application services provided by the Planning Inspectorate in this way? Are these the right objectives? Are there any additional changes to these services in light of the removal of statutory pre-application consultation that guidance should seek to clarify? We would particularly welcome reflections from developers on what factors they take into account in determining which service is most appropriate for their project.  

Question 34

What alternative models could government consider for pre-application support in order to enable better collective oversight and co-ordination of input across statutory bodies?

Respondents generally supported reframing the Planning Inspectorate’s pre‑application services towards outcome‑focused planning advice and earlier identification of potential examination issues, provided reformed services improve application quality and examination readiness. There were requests from all sectors for clearer guidance on the scope of the Planning Inspectorate’s pre-application role, acceptance expectations and on the purpose and status of section 51 advice, with several asking for safe, without‑prejudice channels alongside published advice to enable candid, early problem‑solving.

Concerns about the tiering of service offers were raised, with many respondents from industry bodies favouring a more flexible service offer and some questioning the differentiation between tiers, value for money of services, and any linkage with fast‑track eligibility. Respondents from local authorities, community groups and public bodies said engagement quality should remain inclusive following the removal of statutory pre‑application consultation and charging should be transparent with accountable outputs.

Capacity and capability across the Planning Inspectorate and statutory bodies was seen as a primary risk to delivery and consistency, with respondents across industry bodies, local authorities and environmental organisations noting that changes to the delivery model and services will only succeed if these are matched by credible resourcing. It was noted that cost recovery alone does not create capability, with suggestions of establishing a clearer but adaptable operating model, with indicators of readiness and complexity, shared issues logs and evidence plans to bring consistency without imposing a one‑size‑fits‑all approach.

Respondents across all sectors suggested that multi‑party engagement could be encouraged including through neutral, jointly chaired EIA scoping workshops, and pointed to a potentially valuable role here for the Planning Inspectorate. There was support from industry bodies and public bodies for lead‑regulator or lead‑consultee models and expert topic groups, especially for environmental matters, but it was noted that this should never undermine regulatory independence.

Suggestions for shared digital infrastructure such as secure portals and live issue tracking were made, with respondents from industry bodies noting these could improve transparency and accountability, alongside clearer signals on prioritisation and fast‑track.

Government response

The Planning Inspectorate is perhaps uniquely positioned at the NSIP pre-application stage, with the objectivity and convening power to bring parties together to collaborate and problem solve early which, whilst in the interests of effective infrastructure planning, might not always take priority within individual bodies. Government expects the Planning Inspectorate’s pre-application service to provide an impartial view on questions relating to potential examination issues using its experience and knowledge of the process. This has the potential to add value to projects, and support a more predictable approach.

Whilst previous pre-application service reforms sought to introduce a more proactive planning role for the Planning Inspectorate, these were not sufficiently informed by customer demand. The current Pre-application Prospectus is based on applicants adhering to processes set out in three rigid tiers. We want NSIP services to be focused on value creation, more responsive to feedback, based on delivering the best possible outcomes for infrastructure, rather than overly focused on process. We understand that the extent to which the Planning Inspectorate can play this role is dependent on clear transparent objectives, the right capability being in place, strong co-ordination and communication across statutory bodies, effective communication with applicants, and clarity on all sides that pre-application engagement will inform subsequent process. 

Efficient examinations are in the interests of everyone, and these are best supported through effective use of the pre-application stage. Pre-application should be used for open and productive conversations between the applicant, the Planning Inspectorate and other parties. From consultation responses, it is clear that applicants consider open dialogue with the Planning Inspectorate in pre-application to be constrained, in part by uncertainty around whether engagement is within a ‘trusted space’, as well as because there is no clear link between pre-application advice and examination approach, and by concerns about the quality of services and outputs.

Government will use guidance to set out the role, scope and operation of section 51 advice. In line with what is now common practice at the Planning Inspectorate, government considers that records of the project-specific advice given in discussions by the Planning Inspectorate to applicants under section 51, which is published on its webpages, should generally take the form of summaries of any advice given in accordance with section 51.

Section 51 advice may be issued by the Planning Inspectorate to applicants at any time, with a view to supporting the development of applications that are of a satisfactory standard to be examined. Where the Planning Inspectorate has provided specific technical advice, or convened meetings, or otherwise taken action to support the application’s development, and the applicant does not appear to have had regard to the advice in the preparation of its application, it is highly likely that examination time will be dedicated to the issue. This will draw on the resources of the examination and those engaged with it. 

There is a call for improvements to the quality of advice provided by the Planning Inspectorate during pre-application, with requests for the greater involvement of inspectors and other relevant technical experts. New guidance will support this. Early advice from inspectors can provide insight and assist the identification of likely examination issues, inform the Examining Authority’s preparation of the IAPI and approach to examination, and support timely examinations.

There are several ways in which we could seek to improve knowledge transfer, including ensuring the main outstanding issues and/ or known areas of disagreement are captured at the end of the pre-application stage, and used to inform later stages of the process. We will work with the Planning Inspectorate to put in place a pilot programme launching in summer 2026, which will involve working with applicants, statutory bodies, and local authorities to trial new approaches to pre-application services and examination on live projects. East West Rail is already benefiting from the new flexibility and amending its approach to consultation and examination. Learning from the pilots will inform redesign and improvements to the services. We will ensure that the need to maintain the Planning Inspectorate’s propriety, and the Examining Authority’s role in determining how the examination is run, is central to these considerations.

In relation to the best model for the Planning Inspectorate pre-application services, there is clear interest in an increasingly bespoke and tailored service for projects based on individual project requirements. We agree that the services should be re-modelled to deliver this, but alongside this, it is of primary importance that the Planning Inspectorate is capable and resourced to provide a sufficient and value-adding service to all projects, as well as other parties, which is consistent and structured around clear points and objectives. Such a service or services should be designed to work in tandem with the project-specific engagement that must happen in pre-application, this being:  

• at the inception meeting/ first contact (where project needs and programmes are discussed, and the tier or potential service components can be agreed)
• at EIA scoping (where applicable)
• around notification, which will in future involve engagement with host local authorities, and where relevant the MMO and Greater London Authority (GLA)
• interaction around submission

The Planning Inspectorate acknowledges the feedback received through this consultation on its recently introduced chargeable pre-application services, and is committed to continuous improvement. The Planning Inspectorate is developing better systems to support service user feedback and improve design collaboration. We anticipate these improvements will ultimately result in a more responsive and user centred service. 

It is important that the Planning Inspectorate is able to develop its capability and services to reflect these reforms, as well as to create the organisational resilience needed to meet future demand on its services. The government’s Autumn Budget 2024 announced a one-year investment package to strengthen the planning system’s overall capacity and capability, leading to a higher financial settlement for Planning in the financial year to March 2026. This largely funded a £15m uplift to the Planning Inspectorate’s budget, along with £28m to support local authorities. Government is committed to ensuring the Planning Inspectorate, along with other public authorities, have the capacity and capability they need to fulfil their infrastructure planning roles in infrastructure planning process.

Ensuring the right level of pre-application service from the Planning Inspectorate for high-priority projects

Question 35

What steps could government take to make the enhanced service more attractive to applicants of complex and high-priority projects?

Question 36

Should guidance be more directive in setting out that, where applicants are advised that a project has been assessed by the Planning Inspectorate as being in need of a higher level of service (for reasons including project complexity and local circumstances), applicants are expected to adopt that level of service?

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	46%
No	35%
Don’t know	19%

Question 37

Should guidance also specify that recommendations made by the Planning Inspectorate on the allocation of their pre-application services ought to be informed by considerations about whether the project or project type has been identified by government as a priority? If so, would this have any unintended consequences? Would it be important for government to be clear and transparent on what its priority projects are?

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	54%
No	22%
Don’t know	24%

Industry bodies raised the need for greater clarity about the enhanced service, raising that uptake depends on a precise, reliable offer that delivers net benefits over cost and workload. Industry asked for defined service standards, transparent itemised pricing linked to deliverables, and evidence from pilots that participation improves certainty and reduces duplicative work. The earlier involvement of inspectors was considered to be valuable where this could narrow issues, supported by disciplined escalation and practical shared tools, such as live issue trackers, to maintain accountability.

Respondents across industry bodies were concerned that projects aspiring to be fast-tracked are currently required to adopt the enhanced level of service, noting that time benefits are not guaranteed, and that fast‑track access should relate to application quality and readiness rather than payment for the enhanced tier. Again, system capacity across the Planning Inspectorate and statutory bodies was seen, across all sectors, as vital for credible delivery. Solutions suggested by those from industry bodies included offering modular uptake so applicants can target the topics that drive risk, recognising differing sources of complexity, and considering fees or incentives for schemes with high public value while avoiding mandatory routing unless the offer is demonstrably proportionate and beneficial.

Respondents from industry bodies and local authorities supported allowing priority status to be considered alongside other factors, with recommendations remaining advisory and taking into account objective characteristics such as complexity, risk, readiness and proportionality. Respondents across all sectors said government should define and publish clear criteria and up‑to‑date lists of priority projects to support transparency and forward planning. Concerns were raised from statutory bodies and local authorities that focusing on ‘priority’ projects could negatively impact other projects, particularly in relation to environmental advice, unless a baseline service is protected. A notable minority opposed any linkage between priority status and service recommendations. Respondents from multiple sectors including industry bodies and local authorities also asked for clarity about how priority status relates to acceptance tests, IAPI reforms, and the fast‑track process.

Government response

All NSIP applications are nationally significant, and delivering robust planning decisions to statutory timescales, or more quickly, remains the fundamental aim of the regime.

Central to the redesign of the Planning Inspectorate’s services will be improving the quality of advice offered in pre-application. Responses demonstrate that there is demand for the Planning Inspectorate to expand upon its role during the pre-application stage, including through more proactive involvement with project stakeholders. However, not every applicant will want this option and therefore the continuation of a service based on the minimum process requirements is needed.

The cost of pre-application services falls to applicants, and responses show there is some resistance to government being directive about which pre-application service is adopted. Therefore, beyond requesting that all applicants pay for a baseline service which enables the Planning Inspectorate to perform its statutory role at pre-application, applicants will take the decision on what level of service, or elements of the service offered, is appropriate for their project. The Planning Inspectorate will continue to advise based on project complexity, local circumstances and in response to applicant’s wishes. This position is subject to any separate arrangements which may be put in place as part of future decisions around a successor to the current fast track process.

We will maintain the provision of cost-recoverable pre-application services to all projects, and re-design these ensuring that it is improved and responsive to user feedback with increased flexibility for service users. We will design, trial and implement the new services over the coming months, with a view to ensuring they are in place and operational (in full or in part) from summer 2027.

The key aim of reformed pre-application services will be to support applicants to achieve shorter pre-application timings, in line with ambitious and achievable programmes, and to assist in preparing applications by:

• assisting applicants to identify questions of a planning nature which relate to potential examination issues, and tracking issues to develop a golden thread from pre-application to decision
• working with applicants and others to support them to keep to their programmes, including through adopting new approaches in line with system streamlining, including to engagement and consultation
• providing a service which is better co-ordinated with relevant statutory agencies, so that the Planning Inspectorate can play a greater convening role, with the option to issue advice to any relevant party under section 51 taking account of evidence provided by all parties, where this can support application development, especially on environmental issues

This will involve:

• the greater availability and offer of project-specific planning advice to all projects, coupled with improved internal quality assurance of advice
• better knowledge transfer between pre-application and examination, through issues tracking, early involvement of inspectors and other means, so that the IAPI and approach to examination is informed by early stages
• a role for the Planning Inspectorate, where relevant and in line with applicant programmes, convening applicants and relevant local authorities during pre-application, through multi-party meetings and other mechanisms

Government and the Planning Inspectorate, through its new service model, will make better use of data and ongoing feedback to ensure services are responsive to demands, and to monitor improvements over time.

Developing cost recovery services provided by relevant statutory bodies

Supporting pre-application services through effective resourcing of statutory bodies

Question 38

Are there any changes that could be made to pre-application service offerings by public bodies?  

Question 39

Should the ability to cost recover be extended to additional or all statutory bodies that are prescribed in the Planning Act 2008 and Schedule 1 to the 2009 Regulations (as amended)?

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	66%
No	19%
Don’t know	15%

Question 40

How should government develop key performance indicators for public bodies providing cost recoverable services for NSIP applications, and if so, what should those key performance indicators contain?

The closed responses to question 40 have not been reported because the wording of the question was inconsistent with a closed response.

There was general support from across respondents with 68% of respondents agreeing to extending cost recovery powers to more statutory bodies than are currently prescribed. Of the respondents, representatives from industry bodies indicated the lowest level of support across groups, but overall remained supportive. The key benefits perceived from extending cost recovery were addressing resourcing and capacity in statutory bodies, which can restrict their ability to provide quality and timely advice on NSIP applications. Additionally, some respondents felt that it would be fairer if applicants covered the cost of the engagement needed to improve their applications, rather than it being funded by taxpayers via statutory bodies’ funding. Concerns strongly focused on value for money. There were also concerns that if costs recovered became disproportionate to the value of the service provided, early engagement may be taken up by applicants less frequently. Additionally, respondents felt that fee charging powers needed to be tied to performance expectations, such as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

There was general support for the adoption of KPIs for statutory bodies providing cost-recoverable services in the NSIP system, but they were clear that KPIs only add value if they strengthen predictability, accountability and value for money without pushing risk and delay elsewhere in the system. The most consistently raised expectation was that KPIs should reflect the quality and usefulness of advice, with questions about whether fees represent value for money, alongside cost transparency and promptness of engagement and responses.

Government response

We see there is broad support for additional statutory bodies to be able to recover their costs for the services they provide in relation to NSIP applications^{[footnote 1]}, but acknowledge this support is largely conditional on the quality of services being offered. We will therefore explore the extension of cost recovery alongside implementing KPIs and assess which statutory bodies should be prescribed to add the most value to the system.

We have expanded eligibility for the Pathways to Planning scheme beyond local planning authorities to include statutory consultees, opening up the graduate route to a wider range of organisations with planning functions. This broadens the pipeline of trained planners across the planning system and ensures the scheme supports capacity not just within local government but across the bodies that play a critical role in the planning process.

In a Written Ministerial Statement, the Housing Minister outlined a new approach to performance management of key statutory consultees in the TCPA (Town and Country Planning Act 1990 system) regime. We will work in alignment with this statement in developing KPIs for statutory bodies involved in the NSIP system to ensure join up on performance management across planning regimes.    

The government recognises that quality and timeliness of engagement from applicants is a key dependency of service provision by statutory bodies, local authorities, and the Planning Inspectorate. Any increased service offering during pre-application will also need to be met by improved practices from applicants.

Supporting NSIP services provided by local authorities

Question 41

In what ways can government support local authorities as they implement cost recoverable services?

Question 42

How else can government support local authorities in their role engaging with NSIP applications, as they adapt their role to take account of reforms through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill?

Respondents focused on the conditions required to make cost recovery work in practice, particularly clarity, upfront resourcing, and consistency across local authorities. The most frequently raised themes related to clear guidance on what services can be charged for, funding and capacity constraints, and the need for standardised tools and templates. 

Some respondents highlighted the need for transitional or upfront funding, reflecting concerns that cost recovery income often arrives too late to address immediate resourcing pressures. Where training and skills were raised, respondents stressed that cost recovery alone would not resolve structural shortages in planners, environmental specialists, legal advisers, and project managers. Instead, they encouraged government-led training programmes, long-term workforce strategies, and continued investment in centres of excellence and advisory services to build institutional capability rather than relying on ad-hoc recruitment. Clear guidance also emerged as a consistent demand, particularly around defining eligible services and chargeable scope and reducing mistrust between applicants and authorities.

Several responses raised concerns that without shared expectations, cost recovery risks entrenching conflict rather than supporting collaborative problem-solving; they wanted guidance on what applicants should receive in return for payment, including timeliness, quality of advice, and engagement standards across different stages of the NSIP planning process. Respondents also called for clearer expectations and standardised approaches, particularly supported by industry bodies.

Government response

We have introduced new secondary legislation to provide for host local authorities to recover costs for their services provided in connection with NSIP applications/proposed applications. This is supported by statutory guidance under section 54A(4) of the Planning Act which statutory bodies must have regard to in relation to the exercise of their functions under the regulations. Further to this, the PAS has published detailed supporting guidance for local authorities. This guidance draws on local authority experience in addressing the concerns raised by respondents with regard to scope and eligibility of services to be included, promoting consistency and certainty for local authorities.

We are also working closely with the Local Government Association (LGA) to strengthen engagement with local authorities that host NSIPs and to ensure the Pathways to Planning graduate scheme is supporting NSIP-related capacity where there is local demand. This includes targeted outreach to NSIP-hosting authorities through direct email, sector-specific bulletins, one-to-one conversations with the LGA’s placement team, and dedicated workshops – encouraging authorities to participate in the scheme and to direct graduates toward NSIP-related work as part of their placement. A number of NSIP host authorities are already engaged across the first three Pathways to Planning cohorts, with further councils signed up for the September 2026 cohort.

The fast-track process

Question 43

Do you agree that there remains merit for applicants in a fast-track process, based on shortened examinations delivered through primary legislation and with the process set out in guidance, that is designed to deliver a faster process for certain projects? If yes, give reasons why it is not being used currently; if not, please give reasons.

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	44%
No	33%
Don’t know	23%

Question 44

The current fast-track guidance is designed to deliver upfront certainty for making decisions within 12 months of applications being accepted. Do you consider it fit for purpose? If not, please give reasons.

Response	Percentage (%)
Yes	11%
No	52%
Don’t know	37%

Question 45

How do you think the existing fast-track process could be amended to support delivery of government’s priorities, and be more widely applied to applicants? We are also interested in views on how government should determine and communicate which projects it considers to be a priority for taking through the pre-application, examination and decision process.

Question 46

In what ways can government and its agencies best support applicants and relevant stakeholders to achieve robust, and faster decision timeframes during the pre-application, examination and decision process? Please indicate your views on the following potential changes, covered in this section. Please suggest practical measures, tools, or desired policy changes, and give reasons to support these: 

(a) Adapting the existing process so that it supports those projects which are considered by government to be a priority for fast-tracking.

(b) Developing an approach based on a more proactive role for government and its agencies facilitating fast-track projects through the pre-application, examination and decision process. 

(c) Support priority projects to be fast-tracked, by reducing / removing applicant choice from the decision about whether to apply a fast-track process.  

(d) Introduce greater flexibility by adapting the current guidance to make it clear that the priority level of the project will form part of an overall assessment about the eligibility of the project for the fast-track process. 

Question 47

Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding the fast-track process or related policies?

There was some cautious support for retaining a fast-track process, with 44% of respondents agreeing that there remains merit in a process and 56% either disagreeing, or saying they don’t know. Respondents expressed a general lack of confidence about the existing process, with only 11% considering that the existing guidance is fit for purpose. Respondents from industry bodies raised the high cost and administrative requirements of the enhanced pre-application service, which is a current policy pre-condition for fast-track, and concerns around value for money, as this does not guarantee a faster decision. Many respondents asked for clearer and more detailed guidance that decouples fast-track from enhanced pre-application services, making these services optional and proportionate to each project. Some respondents noted that time savings did not justify the extra effort required and that equivalent time savings could be made in the standard process without formal fast-track designation.

Respondents supported a more focused and flexible approach to fast-tracking, based on project readiness and suitability. Whilst some respondents considered that government should be clear about its priorities, and this should be reflected in the approach to services, there were concerns expressed about the risks of a two-tier system developing. There was strong opposition to the proposal to remove applicant choice over whether to pursue a fast-track process, with respondents noting the risk of forcing projects into inappropriate timetables. Many noted the ability of a fast-track process to accommodate less complex projects which are well-prepared and aligned with national planning policy and encouraged an evidence-based eligibility system on this basis.

Respondents questioned whether shorter examinations are realistic for complex projects. Many respondents raised concerns about the potential negative impacts of compressing timetables and advised that Government should measure the potential time-saving benefits of the fast-track process against these. Key risks mentioned included:

• accelerating unprepared schemes
• reducing meaningful engagement
• increased legal risk as part of the process
• displacing delay to later stages in the planning process
• undermining environmental rigour and democratic legitimacy

Respondents across all sectors encouraged safeguards around any fast-track service, to preserve procedural fairness and avoid the perception that shortened timescales reduces scrutiny.

In addition, respondents noted that accelerated timescales could contribute to capacity pressures across the system and that meaningful and effective engagement could be limited by resourcing constraints, particularly for more complex projects. Respondents from local authorities, public bodies and community groups stressed the importance of sufficiently resourcing key stakeholders heavily relied on (i.e., statutory bodies and local authorities) to meet the pressures and expectations of a shortened process without negatively impacting timely, proportionate and quality advice. Many from all sectors noted that redesigning the fast-track process and updating guidance alone would not support the faster processing of applications and that improving the NSIP planning process holistically would deliver greater benefits than a separate fast-track process.

Government response

It is vital that the NSIP planning process offers certainty to investors, applicants, agencies and interested parties, and is capable of delivering sound and robust decisions on the UK’s most critical infrastructure, with consent, if granted, providing a basis for effective construction programming and delivery. We want to ensure our approach going forward enables faster decisions wherever this is feasible.  

Since becoming available to any project alongside the enhanced pre-application service in April 2025, the existing fast-track process has not been used by any applicants, and views are mixed on the benefits it has to offer. Government will consider alternative options to achieve robust, and faster decision timeframes to support delivery of government’s priorities, taking into account the views shared as part of this consultation. We will confirm our future approach later this year. Thereafter, and following further policy development if required, we will implement any necessary changes to the current fast-track guidance. In the meantime, the existing fast track guidance will remain in place.

The NSIP process supports projects which span a huge range of scale and complexity, and through the changes introduced via the PIA 2025 we are driving reforms to support system-wide improvements which will benefit all projects. Over time, we want the NSIP planning process to deliver more consistent and reduced timescales across all sectors. But where it is clear that individual projects or project sectors are capable of being processed more quickly, the system should be able to seize these opportunities, so that accelerated timescales are achieved wherever they are appropriate and proportionate. In considering policy options, we will build on work already in hand to improve the process:

• the biggest lever government can pull to support applicants to come forward in line with national need, and to underpin predictable process, is national policy. We are making good progress updating our national policy statements (NPS) across all NSIP sectors to form a clear, strong, and agile policy basis for infrastructure delivery. Through the Planning and Infrastructure Act government introduced a requirement that NPS be updated at least every five years. Alongside this, government introduced a more streamlined update procedure for making changes to an NPS which reflect published government policy, changes to legislation, changes to published documents referred to in the relevant NPS, or court decisions where it is relevant to the interpretation of the NPS. NPS which have recently been updated include the Water Resources NPS (July 2025), Energy NPS EN-1 (Overarching NPS for Energy), EN-3 (Renewable Energy) EN-5 (Electricity Network Infrastructure) (January 2026) and a new nuclear energy generation NPS (EN-7) which was designated in December 2025
• our PIA 2025 reforms are designed to support a better focus from the outset of the NSIP planning process on the main planning issues within applications, based on clear and updated national policy. Applicants and interested parties will benefit from the focus on identifying and resolving issues from the early stages of an application’s development. Examining Authorities will have the evidence they need to inform clear and effective IAPIs, so that examinations are focused on the principal issues and put a laser-like focus on the examination of these. This will help ensure that once accepted, applications can progress predictably within statutory timeframes to ambitious but realistic timescales set by the Examining Authority. Forthcoming work set out in government’s response to the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025 to introduce model provisions through guidance will also support efficiency at every stage of the planning process
• the planning process is not the only lever we have to support delivery of our infrastructure priorities – through our departments and agencies, government has the ability to closely co-ordinate services and monitor delivery, which can support the planning process, whilst remaining within the bounds of propriety. Government is co-ordinating work across departments and agencies to consider how we can ensure there is appropriate and effective governance and oversight of the NSIP system so that government and its agencies work better collectively to support our overall objectives for infrastructure
• by tackling capacity and capability challenges through reform of statutory services, improving efficiency, and enabling more flexible approaches throughout the process, as well as through other measures mentioned in this response including funded programmes, we will support the Planning Inspectorate, statutory bodies, and local authorities to work with applicants to achieve their programmes. We want to see applicants sharing ambitious and achievable programmes for pre-application – with a reasonable expectation being around 12 months for some projects and sectors. Guidance will be clear that statutory timeframes for examinations reflect maximums, and that shorter examinations, where appropriate, should enable reductions to subsequent recommendation and decision stages

Government will monitor the performance of the regime carefully through better use of data, improved feedback loops, and regular reporting across government to identify where further policy updates, changes to practice, or other actions to address capacity and capability issues can support the system to deliver infrastructure priorities. We recognise that projects will have different requirements, and are thinking about the full suite of NSIP applications going through, and how the planning system can best support all applications. This might mean varying approaches across projects, depending on their level of complexity and other circumstances. As part of our work to support infrastructure delivery, government will establish a stronger co-ordination role to ensure more complex projects, which belong to sectors key to achieving infrastructure priorities, are capable of meeting statutory timeframes, and where possible being determined more quickly.

Conclusion

Together, the above measures will:

• lead to a system which is increasingly capable of delivering planning decisions across a range of sectors to shortened timescales, and where consent is granted, supports predictable construction and delivery periods
• facilitate open and productive engagement during pre-application
• support reduced pre-application timings and the preparation of well-developed applications
• help better inform the early identification of likely examination issues and the preparation of more focused IAPIs
• improve knowledge transfer across the NSIP planning process and NSIP regime, and facilitate faster feedback loops
• deliver a cost recovery system for host local authorities (that is consistent with that used by prescribed statutory bodies) to better support them meeting the demands of the NSIP planning system and strengthen their engagement in the process
• deliver a suite of KPIs to ensure improved services provided to applications across the NSIP planning process - this will need to be matched with quality and timely engagement from applicants
• keep in place existing fast track guidance, with government considering further the best options to achieve robust, and faster decision timeframes to support delivery of government’s priorities, taking into account the views shared as part of this consultation

Chapter 5: Mandatory pre-application requirements under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Question 48

Do you agree that pre-application consultation requirements under the Town and Country Planning Act for onshore wind developments should be removed? Please give reasons.

Introduction

This chapter outlines the government’s response to consultation feedback on proposals:

• to remove statutory pre-application consultation requirements for onshore wind projects under the TCPA 1990 planning system
• to align treatment of other energy infrastructure with the proposals for the NSIP process in this consultation

While most development proposals seeking consent through the TCPA are not subject to mandatory pre-application consultation requirements, onshore wind proposals face unique regulations where certain onshore wind projects are required to consult with the local community before submitting a planning application.

39% of respondents agreed with the removing these requirements for onshore wind, with strong support from respondents from industry bodies, whereas respondents from community groups, public bodies and local authorities (34% of responses) disagreed with the proposals. 27% of responses responded with ‘don’t know’, either giving no view or providing a balanced/ neutral response (not expressing strong agreement or disagreement).

The most common responses in support expressed that removing the requirements would provide consistency across different technologies and between the TCPA and NSIP planning processes. Some respondents felt it would streamline planning while allowing a proportionate approach to community engagement. Some noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets sufficient expectations on community engagement, however others wanted to ensure there was further clear guidance available to support developers and communities.

The most common responses against removal were views that early engagement leads to more appropriately designed schemes, helping to identify local impacts and issues. Others felt onshore wind farms are locally contentious with potential for significant impacts that warrant retaining this requirement. Others also felt removing the requirement may increase likelihood of refusal, and lead to legal challenges, delays and increased local objections to proposed projects.

Government response

We have considered the range of responses received to this question and have concluded that the current pre-application consultation requirements for onshore wind projects under the TCPA should be removed.

We have delivered several actions to create a level playing field for onshore wind in England following the de facto ban, including removing local planning restrictions and reintroducing onshore wind into the NSIP regime. We have also published our first ever dedicated Onshore Wind Strategy in July 2025, setting out bold commitments to help speed up the deployment of onshore wind. By removing these restrictions, we are ensuring onshore wind is treated in the same way as other technologies, further encouraging applications to come forward to meet the government’s ambitious 2030 targets. This will also ensure small and medium sized projects do not face more prescriptive requirements than other types of infrastructure, including the largest projects of national significance.

We recognise the concerns communities may have with removing these requirements. Statutory requirements which allow communities to comment on planning applications submitted to local planning authorities will remain unchanged. In addition, the NPPF encourages developers to have early engagement with communities to help identify and resolve key issues. We have guidance for community engagement from onshore wind developers. This sets expectations around early engagement and helps ensure developers are transparent, engage with a representative cross-section of the community and use a range of engagement techniques. Much of the onshore wind industry already undertakes early, constructive engagement with local communities, including in relation to delivering community benefits schemes, and we expect the sector to continue exhibiting best practice behaviour going forward.

Government will bring forward secondary legislation when parliamentary time allows this year to enact these changes. This will require amending the relevant provisions into development management regulations.

Conclusion

Together, the above measures will:

• help to streamline the planning and delivery of onshore wind across the UK
• ensure onshore wind is handled in a way that is consistent across other energy sectors
• support early and meaningful engagement that is transparent, constructive and outcome-focused

Annex: question by question analysis

Question 1

Please provide views about the potential risks and benefits of government producing more prescriptive or less prescriptive guidance about pre-application consultation and engagement in absence of statutory requirements. In particular, we are interested in views on how guidance on engagement can support an efficient, faster, proportionate and effective NSIP process or whether doing so risks undermining the potential time and cost savings.

There were 131 responses to this question. 

Respondents raised the need for clear guidance outlining minimum expectations to drive an outcome-focused approach, also requesting principles-based flexibility. 

Developers generally supported a principles-based model to allow tailored engagement and innovation, warning against overly prescriptive guidance that could replicate statutory burdens and drive unnecessary documentation. 

Local authorities and community groups favoured more prescriptive guidance to ensure consistency, transparency, and enforceable minimum standards. Statutory bodies highlighted resourcing constraints, and some called for service-level expectations and alignment across agencies to enable timely technical input. 

Respondents raised the point that removing statutory pre-application requirements without robust guidance could weaken accountability, disenfranchise communities, and push unresolved issues into examination. 

Question 2

Should guidance note that collaboration outside of the NSIP process can help to address wider challenges that could otherwise impact development proposals? If so, what should it say?

There were 105 responses to this question. 

Respondents supported early engagement outside formal NSIP stages, emphasising its value in de-risking proposed developments, surfacing design issues and improving transparency. Many linked this to better alignment with permitting regimes and management of cumulative impacts. 

Industry respondents generally welcomed guidance that encourages early engagement and alignment with other consenting regimes, particularly for grid and utility coordination. They sought greater clarity on roles, but cautioned against rigid frameworks that could create informal thresholds or duplicate statutory requirements. 

Local authorities and statutory bodies stressed the importance of transparency and community trust, calling for clear communication on what can be influenced and proportionate expectations. Environmental organisations focused on shared datasets, evidence plans and nature recovery partnerships, warning that removing preliminary environmental information could increase risk. 

Concerns included resource and capacity constraints for early engagement, the risk of overly-prescriptive guidance turning acceptance into a hurdle and duplication with existing statutory processes. A minority of respondents questioned whether guidance is necessary at all, preferring flexibility for applicants. 

Question 3

Would it be useful for applicants to consider these factors while preparing their applications and in particular in relation to any non-statutory engagement and consultation (at paragraph 19)? What changes or additions to these draft factors would you welcome?

There were 111 responses to this question. 91% of respondents agreed with the factors, 4.5% disagreed and 4.5% did not know. 

 A significant majority of respondents agreed that the four factors outlined in paragraph 16 (frontloading, proportionality, openness and transparency, and timeliness) are useful considerations for applicants when preparing applications and planning non-statutory engagement. In addition, respondents suggested new principles on inclusivity and accessibility, responsiveness to feedback, clarity on roles and responsibilities, environmental integration, and alignment with established consultation standards such as the Gunning Principles to ensure fairness and transparency. 

Support was given for frontloading and early dialogue, with respondents agreeing that early engagement helps identify issues sooner, but many respondents stressed that this must not force premature detail or compromise design flexibility, particularly for complex or linear projects. 

Developers and industry bodies generally welcomed the proposed factors, viewing them as a means to streamline processes and reduce risk. 

Local authorities and community groups called for clear statements on what is open to influence, accessible materials and realistic timeframes aligned to resource constraints. Government bodies highlighted the need for clarity on roles and responsibilities and urged early integration of environmental evidence without duplicating existing regulatory processes. 

Respondents warned against guidance that is either too prescriptive or too vague, stressing the need for a balanced approach that combines baseline expectations with adaptability.  

Question 4

Do you agree guidance should set out at a high level the benefits of non-statutory engagement and consultation? Are there any benefits not listed which we should include? 

There were 116 responses to this question. 90% of respondents agreed that guidance should set out the benefits, 4% disagreed and 6% did not know. 

Respondents strongly supported the principle of early and meaningful engagement, and referenced benefits including identifying issues early, building community understanding, transparency and public trust, and narrowing areas of disagreement to streamline examinations. 

Respondents highlighted the benefits of early dialogue for design quality and the success of mitigation and compensation measures. Some suggested specific stakeholders or groups that should be engaged early, such as landowners.  

Some respondents suggested that guidance should provide clarity on the appropriate scope, timing, and/or expected outcomes of non-statutory engagement, and requested case studies or best practice guides. Others cautioned against over-prescription and requested that guidance be flexible and proportionate.  

Some respondents requested clear definitions of engagement and consultation which clearly distinguish the two, and advocated clarity as to applicants’ duties to ensure that the acceptance test does not depend on a subjective assessment of whether the benefits of non-statutory engagement and consultation have been achieved. 

Question 5

Should guidance encourage collaboration between applicants, stakeholders and statutory bodies? If so, what should it say? We particularly welcome views on how collaboration can prevent delays and the role for the sector to work collaboratively with stakeholders and how government can support this.

There were 112 responses to this question.  

Respondents agreed that collaboration should be encouraged, emphasising the importance of early and ongoing engagement and joint problem solving to focus on resolving disagreements.  

Respondents stressed that guidance must clarify responsibilities for stakeholders and a significant minority, particularly community groups and environmental organisations, called for more prescriptive guidance. Standard templates for issues trackers and best practice examples were called for across industry and local government.  

Local authorities highlighted that collaboration would require adequate resourcing for statutory bodies and local authorities. Respondents called for Government to actively support collaboration, including using the Planning Inspectorate to facilitate and coordinate parties, particularly across complex proposed developments.  

Question 6

Should guidance include advice to local authorities, statutory bodies and applicants on finding the right balance between engaging early and engaging with sufficient technical information without creating unnecessary delay? We would also welcome comments on whether and how guidance could encourage applicants, local authorities and statutory bodies to work together to most effectively manage resources in their engagement.

There were 109 responses to this question. 

Respondents agreed that guidance should cover the need to balance early engagement and provision of sufficient technical information. Applicants emphasised that guidance should define what constitutes sufficient information at different stages and focus on proportionality by discouraging unnecessary detail or “gold plating”.  

Respondents stressed capacity concerns among local authorities and statutory bodies and called on government to normalise early cost-recovery arrangements and set clearer expectations for response times. Local authorities pointed out that valuable resource could be wasted on engaging with applications too early.  

Respondents agreed that guidance should encourage structured collaboration to manage resources and avoid duplication, calling for joined up engagement across authorities for cross-boundary schemes.  

Community groups and environmental organisations emphasised the need for engagement with local communities to be based on accessible information.  

Question 7

Is guidance needed to support applicants to identify which statutory bodies should be consulted based on the potential impacts of the proposed application? If so, what should that guidance include?

There were 99 responses to this question. 

Local authorities highlighted confusion within industry around the roles and responsibilities of different statutory bodies and agreed guidance was needed to identify relevant consultees, suggesting definitive lists or matrices to help ensure the correct statutory bodies were engaged. 

Applicants, local authorities and community groups highlighted the importance of early engagement to ensure the correct consultees were identified and emphasised that guidance should also cover the quality, timing and depth of engagement.  

Some applicants suggested maintenance of a centralised digital list of statutory consultees and undertakers, clearly structured by sector, geography and type of development to aid consultee identification and give applicants confidence that their consultee lists are robust. Applicant views were split on this: some wanted firm lists while others argued that rigidity could undermine proportionality on a case-by-case basis.  

Question 8

Would additional government guidance on engagement with statutory bodies regarding environmental requirements be of value, in addition to the advice and guidance provided directly by those organisations? How can guidance support constructive engagement by statutory bodies? Please provide details on what would be most useful in government guidance relative to what is provided to other relevant organisations.

There were 103 responses to this question. 74% of respondents agreed that additional guidance would be of value, 8% disagreed and 18% did not know. 

The most prevalent suggestion was to promote early, iterative engagement with a focus on material risks rather than completeness. This was followed by setting clear, consistent expectations on what should be shared at each stage, and the provision of examples and templates to clarify information requirements. Engagement should be proportionate and avoid duplication. Respondents also noted resource restraints limiting statutory bodies from engaging as much as would be beneficial. 

Question 9

Is guidance needed to support proportionate, effective and constructive engagement from both the applicant and local authorities? If yes, what should such guidance cover?

There were 91 responses to this question. 

Most respondents agreed that guidance is needed to support engagement during the pre-application stage. A key theme was the importance of early engagement, ideally before public launch, to allow local authorities and others to influence scheme design and identify issues such as cumulative impacts, environmental constraints and technical requirements. The need for proportionate and flexible engagement was consistently raised, with respondents stressing that guidance should avoid rigid, one-size-fits-all processes that could create unnecessary burdens. 

Developers and industry bodies generally supported principle-based guidance that allows flexibility. They emphasised early engagement as critical for resolving issues and requested practical tools such as templates and model agreements to streamline processes. 

Local authorities focused on clarity of roles and responsibilities, stressing that technical engagement should not prejudice later political positions, referring to concerns about political sensitivities highlighted in paragraph 33 of the consultation. Statutory bodies and community groups echoed these points, adding concerns about cumulative impacts and the need for accessible, plain language documentation. 

Local authorities warned that without clear cost recovery provisions, capacity constraints could undermine effective engagement. Some respondents also cautioned against cross-boundary engagement with neighbouring authorities that can add complexity without clear benefit, and highlighted the challenge of managing cumulative impacts. 

Question 10

Is guidance needed to encourage applicant engagement with landowners and affected persons in a proportionate, effective and meaningful way? If so, we would welcome views on how guidance should support engagement with landowners and affected persons.

There were 84 responses to this question. 

There was strong support for issuing guidance to frame engagement with landowners and affected persons. Respondents agreed that guidance is essential but differed on whether it should be prescriptive or principles-based.  

Industry bodies supported a flexible, principles-based approach that allows tailoring to project-specific circumstances. They also emphasised early engagement, proportionality, and alignment with compulsory purchase guidance to maintain legal clarity and streamline processes.  

Local authorities and community groups generally echoed the need for guidance but placed greater emphasis on enforceable minimum standards, transparency, and accessibility. They highlighted the importance of early and iterative engagement, clear expectations on timing and information, and safeguards for vulnerable groups.  

Some respondents expressed reservations about removing statutory pre-application consultation without enforceable safeguards, warning that discretionary engagement could reduce transparency and exclude affected parties. Respondents also raised concerns about professional and legal cost barriers and the need for accessible formats, including face-to-face engagement and plain language materials, to ensure inclusivity. 

Question 11

Should guidance support applicants to identify Category 3 people to be notified once an application is accepted for examination? If so, what should it say?  

There were 82 responses to this question. 

There was strong support for guidance with clear criteria for identifying Category 3 persons, including definitions, practical tests and examples, to ensure consistency and fairness.  

Industry respondents generally welcomed guidance but emphasised flexibility, suggesting the need for proportionate, scenario-based criteria and practical tools while warning against rigid prescriptiveness.  

Local authorities and community groups prioritised clarity and transparency, advocating standardised approaches, audit trails and early engagement to build trust and reduce disputes.  

Respondents highlighted potential risks of stress and confusion from poorly explained or overly broad notifications and cautioned that duplicating existing publicity requirements could undermine streamlining objectives. 

Question 12

 Is guidance needed to encourage applicant engagement with communities in a proportionate, effective and meaningful way? If so, what should it say? We would also welcome thoughts on how guidance can provide clarity and support engagement by communities.  

There were 98 responses to this question. 

There was strong support for clearer, outcome focused guidance, including definitions of what “proportionate, effective and meaningful” engagement entails and minimum expectations to avoid inconsistency. Closely linked were expectations for early engagement and transparent feedback loops (“you said, we did”) to demonstrate how community input influences proposals. 

Industry respondents generally supported principles led, flexible guidance that avoids rigid checklists, while still recognising the value of lightweight baselines such as early engagement windows, concise accessibility standards, and succinct engagement summaries. Many emphasised practical tools and case studies and encouraged a blended engagement mix. 

Local authorities frequently sought clear definitions, explicit recognition of the local authority role in helping identify affected and harder-to-reach groups, and strong commitments to plain language, accessible, multiformat materials. Community and environmental groups stressed demonstrable influence on design, proactive inclusion and support for ongoing dialogue through forums or liaison groups. 

Respondents cautioned that removing statutory pre-application consultation requirements could diminish incentives for meaningful participation. Additional concerns included consultation fatigue, overreliance on digital channels, resource constraints for councils and communities, and the risk that over prescriptive rules could stifle innovation while under prescription could entrench inconsistency. 

Question 13

Should guidance continue to encourage applicants to use tools such as Issues and Engagement logs, and Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statements? Please comment on the value and scope of these documents for informing likely examination issues in light of the removal of statutory requirements for consultation. We also welcome views on any potential advantages or disadvantages for enabling a more effective examination if regulations required some of these documents to be submitted alongside an application.  

There were 96 responses to this question. 81% of respondents agreed that guidance should continue to encourage the use of these tools, 3% disagreed and 16% did not know.

There was support for tools such as Issues and Engagement Logs and Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statements (PADSS). Respondents highlighted their value for transparency, accountability and early identification of key issues, particularly in the context of removing statutory consultation requirements. Some support was provided for an applicant-led single consolidated tool/integrated tracker, as well as standardised templates, and outcome-focused reporting.  

Industry bodies generally welcomed these tools for their ability to focus examinations but stressed the need for proportionality and flexibility. Many called for streamlining through a single consolidated tracker and warned against duplication between PADSS and Statements of Common Ground (SoCG). 

Local authorities and community groups generally supported the tools as essential for demonstrating meaningful engagement and maintaining trust and generally advocated for mandatory submission to ensure consistency and accountability. Government bodies echoed these points and highlighted the importance of clear guidance on timing, roles, and expectations. 

Respondents raised concerns regarding duplication and complexity, the risk of tick-box exercises, and potential resource burdens if multiple overlapping documents are required (particularly highlighting the overlap between PADSS and SoCG). 

Questions 14 and 15

Are voluntary evidence plans an effective way of getting input on environmental issues early to inform environmental assessments and identify suitable mitigations?  Please provide reasons.

Should guidance set out the circumstances in which use of voluntary evidence plans might be beneficial? 

There were 86 responses to question 14 and and 84 responses to question 15.  Due to the questions’ overlap, many respondents provided overarching answers across the two questions, with 13 doing so in only one of two question boxes. Therefore, question 14 and 15 were analysed jointly.

54% of respondents agreed that voluntary evidence plans would be effective, 12% disagreed and 34% did not know. 71% of respondents agreed that guidance should set out the circumstances for using voluntary evidence, 10% disagreed and 19% did not know.

The most prevalent theme, particularly from industry respondents, was the need for proportionality in any evidence plan approach, cautioning against recreating preliminary environmental information reports or being duplicative with existing environmental assessments.

Respondents, particularly local Government bodies and community groups, saw value in evidence plans to promote structured early engagement which can address issues early on by informing design choices.

Several respondents asked for clarity on what is expected from statutory bodies and applicants.

Question 16

If guidance were to highlight the option to publish an engagement summary report, what might the potential advantages and disadvantages of this be? We would also welcome views on submitting this report alongside an application, especially what advantages and disadvantages there may be for a more effective examination if guidance encouraged or regulations required its submission.  

There were 91 responses to this question.

Respondents were divided over whether the Engagement Summary Report should be mandatory or voluntary. Many developers and industry bodies favoured flexibility to avoid recreating burdensome processes, while local authorities and community groups often supported a mandatory approach to ensure consistency and accountability.

Industry respondents generally welcomed the concept of a concise, outcome-focused report but stressed that it should remain optional. They highlighted risks of duplication with existing documents and warned against prescriptive requirements that could undermine streamlining objectives.

Local authorities and community groups emphasised transparency and accountability as critical benefits of the report. They viewed it as a tool to demonstrate responsiveness and build trust, and some argued that mandatory submission would safeguard engagement quality, particularly where statutory consultation duties are being removed.

Respondents across categories raised concerns about duplication with SoCGs and Issues and Engagement Logs, the potential for reports to become lengthy and bureaucratic and risks of tick-box compliance.

Question 17

Do you agree that requiring the following information in notifications to the Planning Inspectorate, host local authorities, and the Marine Management Organisation would be beneficial in enabling them to prepare for examination? What other information or documents could be encouraged through guidance?

(a) Whether a proposed application is expected to be EIA development. Yes/No/Don’t know.

(b) When notifying the Marine Management Organisation, whether a proposed application is expected to require a marine licence for any licensable activities. Yes/No/Don’t know

(c) Where the most up-to-date information is published and available to view. Yes/No/Don’t know

(d) Publishing the notification on the applicant’s project website. Yes/No/Don’t know

(e) Other. Please provide your views

There were 98 responses to this question. 84% of respondents agreed that information on EIA compliance should be required, 6% disagreed and 10% did not know. 72% agreed that information on marine licensing should be required when notifying the Marine Management Organisation, 5% disagreed and 23% did not know. 88% agreed that a link to the most up-to-date published information should be required, 2% disagreed and 10% did not know. 85% agreed that publishing the notification on the applicant’s project website would be required, 3% disagreed and 12% did not know.

Respondents emphasised the value of an early, concise notification that enables host authorities, statutory bodies and the Planning Inspectorate to programme specialist input, secure governance slots and agree PPAs in good time. They asked for a realistic forward look, particularly indicative submission windows and key pre‑application milestones, so they can align resourcing and avoid clashes in areas with multiple NSIPs. This theme was raised most frequently by industry bodies, with local authorities and environmental/civil society groups reinforcing the case for early timetabling and, in complex geographies, encouraging early tripartite working between applicants, host authorities and the Planning Inspectorate to manage cumulative demands. 

Respondents also called for clear contact and engagement information to sit alongside the notification. They want named functional contacts (for example, an environment lead), a straightforward route to register for updates, and, emphasised by community groups, plain language signposting so stakeholders and communities can find the right materials without navigating technical repositories. 

There was also a call for the government to avoid ambiguity in the notification package while preserving the iterative nature of pre‑application. They want guidance to define what “the most up‑to‑date information” means; to distinguish public‑facing updates from bilateral, work‑in‑progress exchanges; and to encourage simple version control so people can see what has changed and why. 

Question 18

Should guidance indicate a point at which the applicant should issue the notification? If so, at what should it say?  

There were 95 responses to this question. 73% of respondents agreed that guidance should indicate a point at which the applicant should issue the notification, 10% disagreed and 17% did not know.

Respondents sought a clear expectation that applicants should notify early, but once proposals are sufficiently developed, with regard to scope and location, to enable meaningful engagement and avoid repeated re-notifications. Local government bodies described this as an opportunity before submission to signal intent and allow preparation for examination, while many industry respondents emphasised the need for a stable preferred option and workable engagement plan before notifying. Respondents encouraged government to frame guidance so that early notification is purposeful rather than procedural, and to make clear how this interacts with the Programme/Issues document so that updates can be shared transparently without creating churn.
 
Respondents asked that guidance links notification explicitly to resourcing and delivery, so that, on receipt, statutory bodies and host authorities can assign leads, stand up technical working groups, and, where relevant, initiate Planning Performance Agreements or other cost-recovery arrangements. They encouraged government to support this by clarifying the actions expected of recipients, signposting advisory services, and helping to build capability in authorities with less NSIP experience. Where respondents raised concerns about clustered schemes, they stressed that earlier, purposeful notification, preferably accompanied by clear programmes, would help sequence inputs and reduce cumulative pressure on communities.
 
Some respondents favoured anchoring notification to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) milestones or other pre-application gateways. Suggestions included notifying at or just ahead of EIA scoping so that methodologies and survey scopes can benefit from early input, notifying before baseline campaigns begin where that would improve design and evidence planning, and using Planning Inspectorate inception meetings. Others cautioned against prescribing a trigger earlier than scoping, arguing this could add administrative burden without commensurate benefit. 

Question 19

Do you agree that a specific format with contents requirements, would be beneficial to standardise this duty for both the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate when ensuring that this duty has been met (please specify why)? We would also welcome views on what further guidance may support this clarity.  

There were 92 responses to this question. 68% of respondents agreed that a specific format would be beneficial, 8% disagreed and 24% did not know. 

Respondents wanted government to introduce a clear, common notification format so applicants and reviewers can work to predictable contents, minimising omissions and reducing clarification cycles at acceptance. They linked a uniform template to better transparency, and to lower risk of procedural challenge; several also connected a standardised form to improved forward planning. 

Where respondents, mainly industry bodies and some local government bodies, emphasised a flexible approach, they asked government to publish a model template as guidance, so that notifications remain proportionate to project scale and stage. They warned against over‑prescriptiveness that could add administrative cost and encouraged explicit permission for applicants to explain when certain information is not yet available or not relevant. 

Some local authorities and community organisations argued for mandating the template via secondary legislation to guarantee a consistent minimum standard across sectors and schemes, enabling better early awareness and capacity planning for host authorities.

Respondents also encouraged the government to ensure any approach remains easy to understand and deploy in practice. This included suggestions that a model template should be accompanied by worked examples and proportionality principles. 

Question 20

Do you agree with the proposal to move to a ‘digital first’ approach by only requiring information to be made available for inspection online? Please explain why. The government would welcome information and data about any potential impacts, including equalities impacts, of this change.  

There were 107 responses to this question. 61% of respondents agreed with the proposal, 27% disagreed and 12% did not know.

Respondents, in particular local government and community groups, opposed a ‘digital only’ model in comparison to a ‘digital first’ model and called to retain physical access to avoid exclusion.  

Benefits of digital publication such as efficiency, speed, reach and transparency were highlighted particularly by industry bodies and some government bodies noting that provided physical copies can still be available when needed. 

Question 21

What further guidance would support applicants to undertake effective publicity which enables transparency and public awareness?  

There were 66 responses to this question. 

Many respondents called for multi‑channel publicity combining digital tools, project websites and social media, with physical routes such as letters and leaflets, notices in and around sites, and materials in libraries and council offices. Community groups and local authorities stressed the risk of digital‑only exposure for older residents, rural areas and disadvantaged groups, while industry respondents supported blended plans tailored to local context. 

Respondents, particularly community groups, highlighted the importance of accessibility, clarity and non‑technical information. They asked that guidance require plain language summaries supported by clear maps and visuals, with accessible formats published at the same time as technical material, and staffed telephone or email routes for those who cannot or prefer not to engage online. 

Respondents, particularly industry bodies, supported by some individuals, also asked that guidance remain flexible and proportionate, focused on outcomes rather than fixed checklists. They encouraged an approach in which applicants justify their chosen methods by project scale, geography and audience characteristics, with assessments considering whether those likely to be affected could reasonably find out and participate, rather than whether a particular approach was used. 

Question 22

What further advice is needed through guidance to ensure sufficient clarity about the test that will be applied by the Planning Inspectorate at the acceptance stage, and how applications can be prepared that will meet the acceptance test? What guidance if any should be provided to provide clarity about matters that are not tested at acceptance, in order to clearly establish the difference between past and future requirements?  

There were 87 responses to this question.  

Respondents emphasised the need for a clear, predictable acceptance stage that supports timely decisions while avoiding unnecessary repeated work. They asked for proportionate guidance that is easy to use in practice and that draws a line between what must be in place at submission and what can appropriately be tested during examination. 
 
Many applicants, local authorities and government bodies called for checklists and worked examples. They asked for an up-to-date, authoritative single source that brings together statutory requirements, an annotated acceptance checklist and concise templates, so applicants can see at a glance what must be provided.

Respondents also sought clear definition of the acceptance test and a reduction in subjectivity. They asked for practical, operational language that explains what it means in practice for an application to be satisfactory standard, supported by short examples. This was raised across sectors, with particular emphasis from industry bodies and local government, who warned that vague tests risk “gold plating” as applicants overcompensate.    
Many respondents urged a stronger focus on technical completeness at acceptance so that fundamental information gaps do not spill into the six-month examination. Respondents want coherent, internally consistent technical baselines, especially for environmental assessment, habitats, flood risk and the historic environment, so the Examining Authority can focus on the principal issues from the outset.

Question 23

How can applicants outline how they have had regard to section 51 advice from the Planning Inspectorate when they submit applications, and what should be encouraged through guidance?  

There were 63 responses to this question.
 
Respondents called for a concise signposting device, typically a short table or statement, that maps each item of section 51 advice to the precise place in the application where it is addressed, with a brief explanation where applicants have taken a different approach. Many asked for this to be embedded within existing submission documents so as not to create a new standalone document. 
 
Respondents supported structured templates and clearer standards, including incorporating the evidence of regard into section 55/acceptance materials. Respondents wanted a simple, light‑touch matrix or checklist to aid consistency and traceability, accompanied by clearer acceptance‑stage expectations and proportionate examples to guide practice. 

Question 24

What further steps should government consider to strengthen the role of the Initial Assessment of Principal Issues (IAPI), so that it supports early clarity for all stakeholders, procedural fairness, and a more focused and effective examination?  

There were 83 responses to this question.  

Respondents consistently emphasised that a more focused IAPI, rather than a broad list of topics, could improve examination efficiency, proportionality and clarity, provided it is applied transparently.

Industry respondents were generally supportive of strengthening the IAPI as a tool to streamline examinations. They emphasised the benefits of clearer guidance, greater consistency and a stronger procedural role for the IAPI in shaping timetables and hearings, while cautioning against unnecessary prescription that could introduce delay or legal risk.

Local authorities, statutory bodies and community organisations broadly supported the intention to improve focus and clarity but placed greater emphasis on inclusivity, transparency and flexibility. These respondents stressed the importance of ensuring that locally significant, cumulative or emerging issues are not marginalised and that participants can clearly see how their concerns are considered within a more focused examination framework.

Respondents raised concerns about the risk that an overly narrow or rigid IAPI could undermine procedural fairness, limit the ability to respond to emerging evidence, or be perceived as excluding issues from consideration. 

Question 25

Do you agree that existing guidance provides enough information to aid local authorities in preparing meaningful local impact reports and should therefore be retained? If further information would be beneficial to be included within this guidance, what should it say?  

There were 90 responses to this question. 48% of respondents agreed that the existing guidance provides enough information and should be retained, 30% disagreed, and 22% did not know. 

Raised most frequently was the need to ensure a balance between more prescriptive guidance and a proportional approach to avoid excessively long local impact reports (LIRs).  

There was strong backing across industry for templates and examples and joint LIRs were also widely supported to avoid duplication and present a coherent position.  

Local authorities emphasised the importance of early engagement and, where possible, early sight of key documents so that timely LIRs could be drafted for early in Examination.  

Some respondents raised concerns relating to resourcing and the capacity of local authorities to effectively deliver a full LIR. Linked to this was the overlap between other documents such as relevant representations, written representations and the need to avoid unnecessary duplication within these documents.  

Question 26

Is existing guidance clear on the difference between a relevant representation, written representation and local impact report? What further information on the differences between a local impact report and relevant representation would be beneficial to assist local authorities? 

There were 83 responses to this question.  31% of respondents agreed that existing guidance is clear on the differences, 42% disagreed and 28% did not know. 

Respondents across industry and local government repeatedly called for guidance to distinguish between relevant representations , written representations  and local impact reports (LIRs), avoid repetition across submissions and avoid duplication, potentially aided by templates. Comparison tables showing the differences between these documents, alongside examples, were suggested by several respondents.  

Respondents particularly questioned the role of written representations, with several industry bodies suggesting they could be removed.  

Industry bodies and community groups emphasised the need for LIRs to be purely objective and informed by technical considerations, whereas relevant representations and written representations were seen as the better place to express the political position of a local authority.  

Question 27

How can guidance seek to reduce existing barriers that public authorities face in engaging with the process? 

There were 75 responses to this question.  

Respondents emphasised capacity, funding and specialist skills shortages as key barriers to effective participation and called for the government to consider training and capability support, rather than attempting to use guidance to address these issues. Local authorities emphasised the need for cost recovery and Planning Performance Agreements. 

There was support for guidance to set clear expectations for public bodies, and provide clarity as to roles, responsibilities and the scope of evidence to be submitted using practical tools such as templates, checklists and best-practice examples.  

Many respondents, particularly government bodies, community groups, and civil and environmental organisations, supported greater clarity around examination timetables and hearings including calls for earlier meeting agendas, clearer hearing scheduling and a written-first approach to ensure that oral sessions are limited and targeted to specific issues.  

Some respondents emphasised front-loaded, structured engagement to minimise duplication and additional burdens on public bodies later in the process, noting guidance could support joint working between local authorities.  

Question 28

What should guidance say to ensure public authorities engage appropriately with examinations? We would welcome views on how guidance can outline the circumstances in which public authorities are relevant to the application.

There were 76 responses to this question. 

Many respondents felt that guidance should set stronger expectations on public authorities to engage with examinations, including that they should submit succinct, evidence-based inputs on time, avoid raising new fundamental issues during examination unless necessary, and attend hearings where requested by the Examining Authority. Many felt guidance should emphasise early, structured engagement before examination to identify and resolve issues early. 

Respondents, particularly community, civil and environmental organisations, agreed that guidance should clarify when and why public authorities are relevant. Suggestions included relevance indicators (e.g. when a statutory function is affected), support for bodies to keep contributions within their remit, and clarification of the weight to be given to local authorities’ input on different issues.

Respondents emphasised the resourcing pressures that public bodies face and called for enhanced cost recovery and capacity building measures. 

Some respondents, particularly community, civil and environmental organisations and government bodies, wanted guidance to enable public authorities to engage with examination flexibly and promote efficient use of their resources, including through realistic expectations for a practical level of input, flexible hearing attendance, and the use of written routes where suitable. 

Question 29

Do you consider that regulations for compulsory acquisition as part of DCOs should, where possible, limit the duplication of procedures where land acquisition changes are required and to provide the Examining Authority with greater discretion to set reasonable timeframes to reflect the specific circumstances of each DCO and its associated land acquisition issue?

There were 80 responses to this question.  70% of respondents agreed that regulations should limit where possible the duplication of procedures, 4% disagreed and 26% did not know.

The majority of respondents supported the intention to avoid duplicating procedures when land acquisition changes arise during examinations and to allow the Examining Authority to tailor the approach to the circumstances of each case.  

Industry bodies, applicants and their advisers argued that proportionate, case specific handling would prevent sensible, minor adjustments from being timed out, reduce unnecessary renotification or repeat hearings, and enable written processes where appropriate while keeping the examination on track, streamlining the process. Local authorities and other respondents generally accepted the case for streamlining where effects were contained and well understood, provided it was underpinned by clear parameters. 

Respondents emphasised that any streamlining must not weaken people’s ability to participate - particularly where newly affected parties emerge - or compress timeframes to the point that engagement becomes insufficient. Local authorities and community groups highlighted the need for adequate time to absorb changes, seek advice and prepare representations; transparent reasons where timetables are shortened; and clarity about how the Examining Authority will ensure that new participants can be heard without rerunning the entire process.  

Respondents, particularly industry bodies, utilities and statutory undertakers, asked for practical guidance to support consistency across examinations. They looked for worked scenarios and decision tests to distinguish minor, noncontroversial updates from changes that warrant fuller procedures, alongside model wording for targeted notices and written only steps. Several argued that the core elements of any reform should be set out in secondary legislation, with guidance used to operationalise detail, in order to provide confidence, minimise the risk of legal challenge and ensure transparent use of compressed timetables. 

Question 30

Are there any further changes that could be made to the infrastructure planning CA regulations and supporting guidance to contribute to the streamlining of the DCO examination process by reducing repetition or timescales where changes to land acquisition are required post submission?

There were 63 responses to this question.  31% of respondents agreed that there were further changes that could be made, 12% disagreed and 57% did not know.

Respondents converged on a pragmatic package that would keep examinations focused while avoiding unnecessary re-runs when land changes arise post-submission.  

Respondents, primarily industry bodies and statutory undertakers, called for worked examples, standard forms for notices and objections, and model protective provisions to reduce bespoke drafting and renegotiation and to deliver greater consistency across cases. They emphasised that guidance should set out thresholds and evidence expectations so proportionate documentation replaces blanket repetition and to enable consistency.  

Respondents wanted a clear tiered change process distinguishing minor, moderate and major post-submission land changes, with proportionate procedures and options for written representations and compressed timetables where impacts are limited. There was a strong preference to bundle related land acquisition changes into single submissions and to keep examinations within the original timetable wherever practicable, while retaining hearing triggers for consequential shifts.  

Local authorities and other interested groups most often stressed that streamlining should not come at the expense of procedural fairness. They asked for safeguards to ensure newly affected parties can participate meaningfully, maintenance of reasonable timescales for people to seek advice, and transparent reasons for shortening of timetables. Industry respondents paired their support for discretion with the expectation that these baseline protections would remain in place. 

Question 31

In addition to the changes highlighted in Chapter 3 of this consultation, what further changes to pre-examination and examination guidance would support efficient and effective examination of applications for development consent? 

There were 52 responses to this question.  

Across both pre-examination and examination, a prevalent theme was the reduction of documentation to avoid duplication, noting that the use and purpose of issues trackers, PADSS, PMIESs and SOCGs could be clarified and streamlined.  

For pre-examination, respondents stated that guidance should set expectations for the Planning Inspectorate to provide an estimated timetable quickly upon acceptance and agreement of the relevant representation period, so that resource could be prioritised accordingly to enable better planning for the examination period.  

For examination, respondents emphasised the need to limit examinations to unresolved, material issues and avoid re-examining matters already settled in policy. Respondents, in particular industry bodies, requested better planning of agendas for Issue Specific Hearings and a requirement for appropriate attendance from regulators and SNCBs at hearings.  

Respondents also emphasised the need for Examining Authorities to retain procedural flexibility, adapting approaches to project scale, complexity and national significance, while maintaining fairness. 

Question 32

Are there further changes to secondary legislation – for example, the Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure Rules) 2010 – which you believe government should consider to support effective and efficient examinations?

There were 42 responses to this question.  

Respondents raised the need for greater proportionality and focus in examinations, with many arguing that current procedures can be overly rigid and duplicative. Respondents consistently emphasised that examinations should be better tailored to project scale and complexity, with clearer mechanisms to concentrate on effort on the key issues that are material to decision-making. 

Industry respondents, including developers, promoters and professional bodies, generally supported the direction of travel set out in the consultation and encouraged further streamlining. They highlighted duplication between procedural stages, limited flexibility in timetabling, and insufficient use of tools such as the IAPI, arguing these factors contribute to unnecessary delay and resource burden without improving outcomes. 

Local authorities, statutory bodies, and community organisations broadly supported improvements to focus and early issue resolution, but placed greater emphasis on safeguards. These respondents stressed the importance of transparency, adequate time for scrutiny, and clear expectations around engagement, particularly where local impacts, environmental considerations or safety-critical issues are concerned. Respondents recommended amending the current Infrastructure Planning (Examination Procedure) Rules 2010 to help address the above. 

A key concern was that an emphasis on speed could undermine the quality and robustness of examinations if not carefully managed. Respondents warned that insufficient scrutiny may lead to unresolved issues being deferred to later stages , increased legal challenge, or reduced confidence in the process, and emphasised that efficiency should be framed around better focus and clarity rather than shorter timescales alone. 

Question 33

Is government correct in seeking to reframe the pre-application services provided by the Planning Inspectorate in this way? Are these the right objectives? Are there any additional changes to these services in light of the removal of statutory pre-application consultation that guidance should seek to clarify?  We would particularly welcome reflections from developers on what factors they take into account in determining which service is most appropriate for their project.  

There were 72 responses to this question.

Respondents largely supported reframing preapplication services towards outcome focused, proportionate merits advice, coupled with a strong and consistent call for much clearer guidance on scope, roles, expectations and the status of advice.

Industry respondents broadly supported the proposed reframing, welcoming a move away from procedural box ticking, but questioned value for money, service consistency and tier differentiation, and stressed that higher cost services should demonstrably reduce risk, time or uncertainty to justify uptake.

Local authorities, statutory bodies and community organisations placed greater emphasis on maintaining early, structured and inclusive engagement, warning that the removal of statutory consultation risks uneven practice unless guidance clearly sets expectations and reinforces roles and accountability.

Respondents also had concerns regarding transparency, cost and resourcing, the risk of inconsistent standards under tiered or prioritised services, and the potential for environmental rigour and meaningful engagement to be weakened without clear, enforceable guidance and sufficient capacity across the Planning Inspectorate and consultees.

Question 34

What alternative models could government consider for pre-application support in order to enable better collective oversight and co-ordination of input across statutory bodies?

There were 53 responses to this question.

Respondents most frequently raised the need for adequate resourcing and realistic capacity for statutory bodies. Respondents argued that improved coordination and oversight will not be effective unless statutory bodies are able to engage early, consistently and with the right expertise. 

Industry respondents broadly supported clearer, more structured and collective pre-application engagement, including joint forums, lead consultee approaches and shared digital tools. However, many developers stressed that existing paid for services do not always deliver, warning that cost recovery without improved capability risks reinforcing delay rather than resolving issues earlier.

Local authorities, statutory bodies and environmental organisations welcomed stronger coordination and collective working, particularly to reduce duplication and conflicting advice. Many emphasised the value of early, multi-party engagement, while also highlighting the importance of proportionality and alignment with local and spatial planning processes.

Respondents raised the risk that greater coordination could become overly rigid, procedural or perceived as directing outcomes, particularly in environmental matters. Respondents also warned that prioritisation or fast-track arrangements could undermine fairness or scrutiny if criteria are unclear, benefits are uncertain, or statutory bodies lack the capacity to meet heightened expectations.

Question 35

What steps could government take to make the enhanced service more attractive to applicants of complex and high priority projects?

There were 53 responses to this question. 

Respondents frequently raised the need for greater clarity, transparency and predictability in the enhanced service offer. Respondents argued that uptake depends on clear service standards, transparent pricing and demonstrable benefits that justify additional cost and effort.

Industry respondents generally viewed the enhanced service as a risk management tool rather than a premium add-on. They emphasised concerns about cost, additional burden and the lack of assured time benefits, while supporting clearer standards, earlier Inspector involvement and more effective coordination.

Local authorities, statutory bodies and community and environmental organisations were generally supportive of improved coordination and earlier issue narrowing, but placed greater emphasis on independence, accountability and system capacity. These respondents were often more cautious about prioritising speed, focusing instead on robustness, transparency and the adequacy of resourcing across the wider system.

Respondents also raised issues about affordability, uneven system capacity, confidentiality and information handling, and the potential deterrent effect of mandatory or poorly defined use of the enhanced tier.

Question 36

Should guidance be more directive in setting out that, where applicants are advised that a project has been assessed by the Planning Inspectorate as being in need of a higher level of service (for reasons including project complexity and local circumstances), applicants are expected to adopt that level of service?

There were 81 responses to this question.  46% of respondents agreed that guidance should be more directive in requiring that applicants adopt the level of service advised by the Planning Inspectorate, 35% disagreed and 19% did not know. 

Local government and government bodies were more likely to support directive guidance to ensure applications are high-quality and to maximise the opportunities for joined-up, early engagement, especially for proposed developments that are particularly complex.

Most, but not all, industry respondents opposed making directive guidance because they state they have the most knowledge about their proposed development, and bear the cost of services. A compromise suggested by some respondents was, if applicants did not want to accept the level of service suggested, applicants should have the option to explain why and choose a different level. Some industry respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the service they had received and would only be open to the Planning Inspectorate mandating the level of service for their proposed development if there were demonstrable improvements in the service offered.

Respondents also mentioned that, if criteria were going to be used in the guidance, it was essential the criteria are clear and well defined. They suggested examples and tools such as flow charts to understand how decisions were being made. This included clarity from the Planning Inspectorate about how the service levels were applied and what benefits each service level provides.

Question 37

Should guidance also specify that recommendations made by the Planning Inspectorate on the allocation of their pre-application services ought to be informed by considerations about whether the project or project type has been identified by government as a priority? If so, would this have any unintended consequences? Would it be important for government to be clear and transparent on what its priority projects are? 

There were 80 responses to this question. 54% of respondents agreed that guidance should specify that recommendations made by the Planning Inspectorate on the allocation of their pre-application services ought to be informed by considerations around government priorities, 22% disagreed, and 24% did not know. 

Respondents consistently raised the need for clear, transparent and publicly available criteria for defining what constitutes a government “priority” project, including an authoritative and regularly updated list to support confidence, fairness and effective planning.

Industry respondents, particularly developers, promoters and consultants, generally supported allowing priority status to inform pre‑application service recommendations, but stressed that it should be only one factor among others. They emphasised that objective project characteristics should remain central, with recommendations remaining advisory and promoters retaining discretion over the service tier they select.

Local authorities, statutory bodies, environmental organisations and community groups broadly shared the emphasis on transparency, but placed greater weight on fairness, neutrality and system impacts. These respondents were more likely to highlight the importance of avoiding differential treatment between proposed developments and ensuring that prioritisation does not undermine confidence in the regime.

Across sectors, respondents raised concerns about capacity and resourcing pressures, the risk of creating a two‑tier system, and uncertainty about how a priority‑linked approach would operate in practice. Many also warned that changing government priorities could introduce volatility, undermine certainty for applicants and statutory bodies, and potentially reduce scrutiny or slow progress for non‑priority schemes.

Question 38

Are there any changes that could be made to pre-application service offerings by public bodies?

There were 63 responses to this question.

Respondents frequently raised the need for pre‑application services to be more predictable, structured and outcome‑focused, supported by clear standards and accountability. Respondents consistently linked this to the importance of adequate resourcing and proportionality, particularly if statutory pre‑application requirements are reduced.

Industry respondents generally supported reforms that provide clearer service standards, tiered offers and earlier issue resolution. They placed particular emphasis on transparent and predictable cost recovery arrangements, with fees clearly linked to service quality and timely, solution‑focused advice.

Local authorities, statutory bodies and environmental organisations broadly supported improved structure and coordination of services but were more cautious about the practicality of discretionary services without sufficient capacity. These respondents consistently stressed the importance of upfront resourcing, clearer guidance on information requirements and formal recognition of the role of local authorities and specialist bodies.

Across sectors, respondents raised concerns about inconsistent service quality, fragmented advice from multiple bodies, and excessive or risk‑adverse information demands being front‑loaded. There were also widespread concerns about resourcing pressures, skills shortages and the risk that enhanced or fast‑track arrangements could create a two‑tier system if not carefully designed.

Question 39

Should the ability to cost recover be extended to additional or all statutory bodies that are prescribed in the Planning Act 2008 and Schedule 1 to the 2009 regulations (as amended?)

There were 86 responses to this question. 66% of respondents agreed that the ability to cost recover should be extended, 19% disagreed and 15% did not know. 

Local authorities were unanimously in favour of extending cost recovery, while a small majority  (53%) of industry bodies were in favour, with primary concerns from those not in favour centred around value for money. 

The primary benefit identified was in addressing the lack of resourcing and capacity in statutory bodies, which restricts their ability to provide quality advice on DCO applications. Additionally, respondents argued that it would be fairer if applicants covered the cost of the engagement needed to improve their applications, rather than it be funded by taxpayers via statutory bodies’ funding.

However, there was concern that if costs recovered became disproportionate, early engagement would be taken up less frequently. Additionally, respondents felt that charging powers needed to provide value for money and be tied to performance expectations, such as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

Question 40

How should government develop key performance indicators for public bodies providing cost recoverable services for NSIP applications, and if so, what should those key performance indicators contain?

There were 80 responses to this question. The closed responses have not been reported because the wording of the question was inconsistent with a closed response.

Based on the free text responses many respondents supported the idea of KPIs for public bodies providing cost-recoverable services in the NSIP regime, but they were clear that KPIs only add value if they strengthen predictability, accountability and value for money without pushing risk and delay elsewhere in the system. 

The most consistently raised expectations were that KPIs should reflect the quality and usefulness of advice and whether fees represent value for money, raised particularly by industry bodies, alongside cost transparency and promptness of engagement and responses.

Question 41

In what ways can government support local authorities as they implement cost recoverable services?

There were 53 responses to this question.

Respondents focused less on the principle of cost recovery itself and more on the conditions required for it to work in practice, particularly clarity, upfront resourcing and consistency across authorities. Respondents raised that guidance needed to outline what can be charged for and raised concerns regarding funding and capacity constraints and the need for standardised tools and templates.

Respondents, particularly local authorities, noted the benefits of transitional or upfront funding, reflecting concerns that cost recovery income often arrives too late to address immediate resourcing pressures. Where training and skills were raised as issues, respondents stressed that cost recovery alone would not resolve structural shortages in planners, environmental specialists, legal advisers and project managers. Instead, they encouraged government-led training programmes, long-term workforce strategies and continued investment in centres of excellence and advisory services to build institutional capability rather than relying on ad hoc recruitment. 

Some respondents, particularly industry bodies, raised concerns that without shared expectations, cost recovery risks entrenching conflict rather than supporting collaborative problem-solving; they wanted guidance on what applicants should receive in return for payment, including timeliness, quality of advice, and engagement standards across different stages of the NSIP lifecycle.

Question 42

How else can government support local authorities in their role engaging with NSIP applications, as they adapt their role to take account of reforms through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill?

There were 55 responses to this question, 51% of which identified as an industry body, and 38% as a local Government body.

Respondents reiterated the responses given to previous questions, particularly around cost recovery, resourcing, increasing collaboration between stakeholders, and streamlining work with proportionate templates. This included calls for clearer expectations and standardised approaches, particularly supported by industry bodies.  

Question 43

Do you agree that there remains merit for applicants in a fast-track process, based on shortened examinations delivered through primary legislation and with the process set out in guidance, that is designed to deliver a faster process for certain projects? If yes, give reasons why it is not being used currently; if not, please give reasons. 

There were 94 responses to this question. 44% of respondents agreed that there remains merit in a fast-track process, 33% disagreed and 23% did not know.

Industry bodies stressed that the high cost and complexity of meeting additional fast track requirements discourage use of the existing process, particularly given the relatively minimal time savings at examination.  However, many recognised the strategic and economic rationale for having a fast-track process in principle.

Respondents highlighted that resource constraints for public bodies remain a barrier to shortened examination timetables. 

Respondents requested that guidance sets clear expectations on which proposed developments are eligible, confirming fast-track status early, and the circumstances in which it may be withdrawn. Many suggested that fast-track should be focused on proposed developments that are simpler, replicable, or well-supported, rather than more complex proposed developments with multiple unresolved matters. 

Civil groups, community and environmental organisations, among others, were concerned that shortened examination timetables may impact the quality of applications and worsen environmental outcomes, with some also stressing a potential loss of local community engagement and trust in the planning process.

Question 44

The current fast-track guidance is designed to deliver upfront certainty for making decisions within 12 months of applications being accepted. Do you consider it fit for purpose? If not, please give reasons

There were 86 responses to this question. 11% agreed that the current guidance is fit for purpose, 52% disagreed and 37% did not know.

Respondents were concerned that the current fast track guidance impedes opportunities for meaningful engagement by reducing the available time to resolve issues and raised that statutory bodies are not sufficiently supported to engage according to shortened timeframes. 

Many respondents, particularly community groups, civil and environmental organisations and local authorities, emphasised resource constraints on public bodies as a key barrier to shortened examination timetables. 

Applicants frequently raised issues that disincentivise use of the existing process, including the additional burden of meeting enhanced pre-application requirements, insufficient certainty of acceptance and time savings, and a lack of clarity over which proposed developments would be eligible. 

Respondents raised concerns about the effects of shortened examination timetables on other stages of the DCO process, including longer pre-examination periods and unaddressed issues negatively affecting the recommendation, decision, and post-consent stages.

Question 45

How do you think the existing fast-track process could be amended to support delivery of government’s priorities, and be more widely applied to applicants? We are also interested in views on how government should determine and communicate which projects it considers to be a priority for taking through the pre-application, examination and decision process.

There were 69 responses to this question.

Respondents requested clear criteria and communication around what constitutes a ‘priority project’, with many proposing published eligibility criteria and a public list of priority projects. A minority suggested that government should not select proposed developments for priority status, which should be determined on the merits of the case only. 

Respondents discussed the barriers to applicants using the existing fast-track process, including high fees, front-loaded requirements and insufficient certainty of acceptance and time savings. 

Respondents advocated front-loaded and structured engagement with stakeholders and statutory consultees, and raised the importance of resourcing statutory bodies to ensure they could engage with proposed developments according to shortened timeframes. 

Some proposed improvements to the way the Planning Inspectorate structures its services and activities to support fast-track, such as transparency around the enhanced pre-application service and its fees, earlier appointment and continuity of Examining Inspectors, and a dedicated fast-track team. 

Civil, community and environmental groups often raised environmental and quality concerns resulting from shortened timetables, and some suggested that the government should focus on reforming the wider consenting process rather than maintaining a specific fast-track route.

Question 46

In what ways can government and its agencies best support applicants and relevant stakeholders to achieve robust, and faster decision timeframes during the pre-application, examination and decision process? Please indicate your views on the following potential changes, covered in this section. Please suggest practical measures, tools, or desired policy changes, and give reasons to support these:

(a) Adapting the existing process so that it supports those projects which are considered by government to be a priority for fast-tracking.  

There were 68 responses to this question.

Respondents said that fast‑tracking should be based primarily on project readiness and suitability, rather than government priority alone, with many respondents arguing that complexity, evidence maturity and unresolved issues were more determinative of timescales than policy designation.

Industry respondents were generally supportive of the objective of faster and more predictable decision‑making, and some saw value in priority status informing resourcing or sequencing, but most stressed that fast‑tracking should remain optional and contingent on readiness.

Local authorities, statutory bodies and environmental organisations placed greater emphasis on process robustness, community engagement and environmental safeguards, often expressing caution about accelerated timetables and highlighting the need for clear criteria, transparent roles and adequate resourcing.

Across respondent types, key concerns included the risk that fast‑tracking unprepared schemes could undermine quality, the potential loss of applicant choice and fairness for affected parties, and persistent capacity and funding constraints within statutory bodies and local authorities that could limit the effectiveness of any accelerated approach.

(b) Developing an approach based on a more proactive role for government and its agencies facilitating fast-track projects through the pre-application, examination and decision process.  

There were 50 responses to this question. 

Respondents supported a more proactive, coordinating role for government and its agencies, particularly at the pre‑application stage, provided this focused on facilitation and early issue resolution rather than directing outcomes or compressing scrutiny.

Developers, consultants and industry bodies generally welcomed stronger government facilitation where it helped align statutory body input, clarify expectations and maintain momentum, but strongly emphasised that fast‑tracking should be based on project readiness and suitability rather than priority alone, and that applicants should retain discretion over whether to pursue accelerated routes.

Local authorities, statutory bodies and environmental organisations were less in favour, stressing that any enhanced government role must safeguard quality, environmental rigour and meaningful engagement, and warning that fast‑tracking could undermine scrutiny or fairness if applied to proposed developments that were not sufficiently prepared or where consultees lacked capacity to engage.

Across respondent types, concerns were raised about removing applicant choice, increasing legal and delivery risk through inadequate preparation, and the impact of persistent resourcing constraints within statutory bodies and local authorities, with many warning that without addressing capacity and funding issues, fast‑tracking could simply displace delay elsewhere in the system.

(c) Support priority projects to be fast-tracked, by reducing / removing applicant choice from the decision about whether to apply a fast-track process.  

There were 58 responses to this question. 

Respondents raised opposition to removing applicant choice over whether to pursue a fast‑track process, arguing that mandating fast‑tracking risked forcing proposed developments into inappropriate timetables and could undermine confidence in the robustness of the planning process.

Developers, promoters and industry bodies supported the objective of faster and more predictable decision‑making but opposed removing applicant discretion. They emphasised that applicants are best placed to assess commercial risk, project readiness and programme implications, and warned that fast‑tracking should be based on suitability and evidence rather than priority status alone.

Local authorities, statutory bodies and environmental organisations broadly shared concerns about removing applicant choice, but placed greater emphasis on fairness, capacity and environmental risk. These respondents highlighted the potential for compressed timescales to reduce meaningful engagement, strain limited resources and increase the risk of legal challenge where applications are not sufficiently prepared.

Across respondent types, concerns were raised about safeguarding quality, environmental rigour and democratic legitimacy within accelerated processes. Many warned that fast‑tracking without adequate preparation and resourcing could displace issues into later stages, ultimately delaying delivery rather than speeding it up.

(d) Introduce greater flexibility by adapting the current guidance to make it clear that the priority level of the project will form part of an overall assessment about the eligibility of the project for the fast-track process.  

There were 45 responses to this question. 

Respondents raised that project priority should be a contributory factor within a wider eligibility assessment, rather than a determining test for fast‑tracking. Respondents consistently emphasised the importance of retaining a holistic assessment based on readiness, complexity, environmental risk and the ability of the system to support accelerated timetables.

Industry respondents, including developers and professional bodies, generally accepted that priority could be a relevant consideration but strongly emphasised the need to retain applicant choice over whether to pursue fast‑tracking. Many highlighted commercial risk, cost and project‑specific constraints, and expressed scepticism that priority‑based guidance changes alone would deliver meaningful reductions in decision times without wider system improvements.

Local authorities, statutory bodies and community and environmental organisations placed greater emphasis on safeguarding quality, environmental rigour and democratic legitimacy. These respondents were particularly concerned that fast‑tracking priority projects without meeting all readiness tests could compress scrutiny, reduce opportunities for engagement and increase the risk of legal challenge or delay later in the process.

Across respondent types, a common concern was that changes to guidance on priority would not deliver faster outcomes in isolation. Many warned that without adequate resourcing, stronger coordination and early issue resolution, prioritisation risks creating unrealistic expectations, shifting delay elsewhere in the system, or undermining confidence in the planning process.

Question 47

Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding the fast-track process or related policies?  

There were 46 responses to this question. 

Respondents raised the need to ensure that fast‑tracking does not undermine decision quality, environmental rigour or democratic legitimacy. Across respondent types, there was strong emphasis on avoiding any perception that speed would come at the expense of robust assessment, lawful decision‑making or meaningful engagement.

Industry respondents were supportive of faster and more predictable processes but stressed that fast‑tracking should be applied only where applications are well prepared and key issues are resolved upfront. Many industry bodies also questioned whether accelerating examination alone would deliver meaningful benefits, pointing instead to pre‑application requirements, coordination and decision‑stage delays as more significant constraints.

Local authorities and community groups were less in favour of fast-track processes, frequently highlighting risks to assessment quality, consultation and public trust. These respondents emphasised the importance of safeguards, adequate resourcing and ensuring accelerated routes are not applied to complex or controversial schemes.

Key concerns included increased legal risk arising from compressed timetables, displacement of delay to other stages of the process and exacerbation of existing capacity pressures across the system. Many respondents also highlighted uncertainty about how the fast‑track process would operate in practice, warning that unclear eligibility criteria and evidence expectations could undermine confidence and limit take‑up.

Question 48

Do you agree that pre-application consultation requirements under the Town and Country Planning Act for onshore wind developments should be removed? Please give reasons. 

There were 84 responses to this question. 39% of respondents agreed that pre-application consultation requirements for proposed onshore wind developments should be removed, 34% disagreed and 27% did not know. 

Applicants, consultants, and industry bodies strongly supported the proposals while community groups, civil and environmental organisations and local authorities were more likely to disagree. 

The most common responses in support expressed that removing the requirements would provide consistency across different technologies and between the TCPA and NSIP regimes. Some respondents felt it would streamline planning while allowing a proportionate approach to community engagement. Some noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets sufficient expectations on community engagement, however others wanted to ensure there was further clear guidance available to support developers and communities.

The most common responses against removal, were views that early engagement leads to more appropriately designed schemes, helping to identify local impacts and issues. Others felt onshore wind farms are locally contentious with potential for significant impacts that warrant retaining this requirement. Others felt removing the requirement may increase likelihood of refusal, and lead to legal challenges, delays and increased local objections to proposed projects.

---

1. Environment Agency, Natural England, Health and Safety Executive, Marine Management Organisation, Historic England, Coal Authority (now known as Mining Remediation Authority), National Highways and Natural Resources Wales can already recover costs. ↩