The UK government has launched a consultation on streamlining the infrastructure planning system. It sits within the wider reform agenda being taken forward through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (‘the draft Bill’), which is currently before Parliament. The Bill sets the statutory framework for reform, while the consultation seeks views on how those changes should be implemented in practice.
For promoters and operators, this is more than a technical exercise. It is a chance to influence the rules that will shape how nationally significant projects are brought forward. The real opportunity is to make sure reforms work on the ground, not just on paper. The stakes are high: these reforms will help determine whether Britain can deliver the energy, transport, digital, water networks and other national infrastructure needed to underpin growth and net zero.
I consider the consultation through three lenses: starting smarter, focusing sharper, and delivering faster.
Theme 1: Starting Smarter – Engagement and Early Steps
(i) Rethinking How We Talk to Communities (Pre-Application reform)
-
The Draft Bill: Removes the statutory requirement for pre-application consultation.
-
Consultation: Seeks views on replacing that duty with an expectation that applicants demonstrate effective engagement, supported by PINS guidance.
Nearly ten years ago, as a bright-eyed young(er) planner armed with spreadsheets and plenty of optimism, I prepared a paper called DCO: Friend or Foe? The research showed that while the NSIP regime was delivering decisions in about three years on average, the pre-application stage was the real wildcard — lasting anywhere from 7 months to 4.5 years, with projects spending on average about 16 months in pre-application.
A decade on, the picture looks remarkably similar. The government’s 10-year infrastructure plan published in June 2025 notes that it took on average 3.6 years to secure a DCO in 2024, compared with 2.6 years in 2012. These figures cover the whole DCO journey, just as my research did a decade ago, and both highlight the same issue: while examinations and decisions have largely kept to their statutory timetables, it is the front end that continues to stretch.
That is why the consultation matters. Rather than keeping rigid statutory duties, the government wants to shift the emphasis onto outcomes: that applicants engage meaningfully, that this feeds into stronger applications, and that PINS can judge at Acceptance whether a scheme is genuinely ready to proceed. Done well, this could replace process-driven consultation with a more flexible system that rewards quality and readiness.
Upside
-
Freedom to design engagement that fits each project.
-
Space for digital tools and innovative engagement methods.
Watchpoints
-
Without clear guidance, there is a risk of inconsistency in how the quality of engagement is judged at the Acceptance stage.
-
Greater need for evidence of effective engagement to withstand scrutiny.
-
Danger of losing community buy-in if consultation feels lighter-touch.
(ii) Cutting Red Tape at the Start Line (Notification, Publicity, Acceptance)
-
The Draft Bill: Creates scope for modernised notification and publicity requirements.
-
Consultation: Seeks views on how these should operate, including whether wider consultation requirements at Acceptance should also be streamlined. It also proposes giving applicants the chance to rectify issues within the 28-day Acceptance Stage rather than risk outright rejection, and introducing a “suitable to proceed” assessment to give PINS a basis to decide if an application is ready to move to the next phase of the process.
The acceptance gateway is critical. By this point, applicants have already invested heavily, so procedural knockbacks can be costly. Currently, relatively small deficiencies in notification, publicity or other procedural consultation requirements can derail applications, even when the underlying scheme is sound. Allowing fixes within the statutory window is a pragmatic step that should prevent unnecessary delays and wasted effort.
Upside
-
A safety valve for applicants to resolve issues quickly.
-
Fewer delays for minor technical errors.
-
More proportionate publicity requirements.
Watchpoints
-
Transition arrangements must be clear for projects already in preparation.
-
Streamlining must still ensure transparency and public awareness.
-
Consistency in how Examining Authorities apply the rectification process.
Theme 2: Focusing Sharper — Examinations and Consultees
(i) Clarity from Day One (Initial Assessments of Principal Issues)
-
The Draft Bill: Strengthens the statutory basis for Initial Assessments of Principal Issues (IAPIs).
-
Consultation: Seeks feedback on how IAPIs should be structured, standardised, and used to keep examinations focused on the most important matters.
In my earlier research I found that the statutory stages once applications were submitted were relatively predictable, typically taking around 16–18 months. The government now wants to make these stages even more effective by sharpening the tools used within them. Strengthened IAPIs are intended to give examinations clearer focus from the outset, helping the Examining Authority identify the key issues early and structure hearings and written questions around them. This reflects the government’s recognition that there is scope to tighten parts of the DCO process after submission, not just pre-application.
Upside
-
Clearer focus on what matters most to the Examining Authority.
-
Reduced scattergun questioning and diversions.
Watchpoints
-
Overlooked issues missed at the IAPI stage may resurface later.
-
A sharper focus may require more evidence upfront, shifting some costs into pre-application.
(ii) Making Consultees Part of the Solution (Roles of Public Bodies)
-
The Draft Bill: Places clearer duties on statutory consultees and relevant local authorities.
-
Consultation: Seeks views on guidance clarifying expectations, timing, and resourcing.
Public body consultees are vital but can be a source of delay. Late interventions or shifting positions create uncertainty for promoters. The draft Bill would require consultees to engage earlier and more predictably, and the consultation seeks views on how this would work in practice. In theory, this should streamline examinations and help applicants avoid last-minute surprises.
Upside
-
More timely and constructive contributions.
-
Fewer last-minute surprises.
Watchpoints
-
Many consultees face resourcing challenges. Duties without funding risk being ineffective.
-
Operators in regulated sectors need confidence that scrutiny remains rigorous.
(iii) Compulsory Acquisition and Examination Procedures
-
The Draft Bill: Provides scope to update regulations governing how compulsory acquisition (CA) is considered during examinations.
-
Consultation: Seeks views on making CA processes more flexible, so that changes to schemes only trigger CA requirements where genuinely necessary, while ensuring fairness and statutory protections remain intact.
CA is one of the most sensitive elements of any DCO. At present, even modest changes to a scheme can trigger new CA requirements, adding complexity and delay. The government is consulting on whether the regulations could be reformed to make CA procedures more proportionate and consistent, while still protecting the rights of affected landowners. These proposals underline that the drive for efficiency extends into the examination itself, not just the earlier stages of the DCO process.
Upside
-
Greater flexibility could reduce unnecessary process when schemes evolve.
-
Clearer and more proportionate treatment of CA issues may help keep examinations within the six-month window.
Watchpoints
-
CA remains highly sensitive; reforms must strike a balance between efficiency and fairness.
-
Applicants may still need to prepare robust evidence earlier to justify why CA powers are or are not engaged.
Theme 3: Delivering Faster – Priority Projects and Fast-Track Routes
(i) Acceleration That Works (Fast-Track and Pre-Application Services)
-
The Draft Bill: Provides for a redesigned fast-track route and enhanced pre-application services.
-
Consultation: Explores eligibility, costs, and how these services should be designed.
A fast-track option already exists but has seen little use. The draft Bill creates the framework for a redesigned fast-track. The consultation asks how it should be structured to provide genuine value to applicants. The challenge is to ensure that the new model offers speed without sacrificing robustness. Promoters will only use it if they can be confident that consents remain robust and defensible in court.
Upside
-
A more accessible fast-track could significantly shorten delivery timeline
-
Structured pre-application engagement with PINS could identify and resolve issues early.
Watchpoints
-
Criteria must be transparent and not unduly restrictive.
-
Promoters need clarity on costs and whether services represent value.
-
Operators may worry about reduced scrutiny increasing the risk of legal challenge.
(ii) Unlocking Onshore Wind While Avoiding Conflict
-
The Draft Bill: Removes certain statutory pre-application consultation requirements for onshore wind projects under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
-
Consultation: Seeks views on how that exemption should be applied in practice, including what replacement engagement requirements might look like and how to balance speed with community involvement.
Onshore wind has had a complex planning journey. Since 2015, projects have often been effectively blocked by restrictive policy tests, particularly the requirement for “community backing.” The government now wants to reverse that trend by creating a clearer and potentially faster route for schemes to secure consent. The draft Bill proposes stripping out some of the statutory pre-application requirements that can hold projects up, while the consultation confirms that applications would instead be assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in the same way as other TCPA projects. In practice, this means safeguards on engagement and policy alignment will flow through the NPPF, rather than additional statutory steps.
Upside
-
A faster, more predictable route for a technology central to achieving net zero.
-
A clear national signal that government policy supports onshore wind deployment.
Watchpoints
-
Community opposition remains a challenge. Strong engagement will still be necessary.
-
Consents must give promoters clarity and certainty to move into delivery with confidence.
Why This Consultation Matters for Promoters and Operators
The government’s ambition is bold: accelerate 150 major decisions before the end of this Parliament. For promoters and operators, that ambition can translate into:
-
A Reduced risk of prolonged uncertainty.
-
A Stronger business cases that support financing.
-
A Better alignment with national priorities in energy, housing, and other growth.
In practice, these benefits will only materialise if the consultation translates into workable guidance, clear expectations, and a well-resourced Planning Inspectorate. Without that, legislative changes alone will not deliver the pace or certainty required.
Points to Watch as the System Evolves
-
How will the quality of pre-application consultation be defined and assessed at the Acceptance stage?
-
Will projects already in the pipeline face transition limbo?
-
Can public body consultees realistically meet new duties without extra resources?
-
Will fast-track criteria unlock benefits for many, or only a few?
Conclusion: A Rare Chance to Shape the Future
Looking back at my younger, bright-eyed self hunched over spreadsheets of DCO timetables, it’s striking how little has changed. Pre-application was the pinch point then, and it remains the pinch point now. The government’s own data confirms the direction of travel: timetables are lengthening, not shortening. Taken together, the draft Bill and consultation are a recognition that the system cannot rely on unpredictable front-end timetables if we want to deliver national infrastructure at pace. They also acknowledge there is scope to tighten the DCO process once an application has been submitted.
That’s why this consultation matters. It’s not just about tidying up processes — it’s about fixing the stage that has always defined whether a project succeeds or stalls.
For promoters and operators, the opportunity is clear: engage now, share real-world insights, and help shape a planning system that delivers the infrastructure Britain needs — faster, fairer, and more predictably.
If you’d like to discuss how these reforms could affect your projects, or need support in preparing a consultation response, please get in touch.
