UK major infrastructure consenting has suffered in recent years from rising complexity and slower decision-making. The consequences are clear: delayed delivery and weakened cost control post-consent, as seen in projects such as High Speed 2. Similar patterns are evident across a number of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), where matters have remained unresolved after the recommendation stage — leading to further consultation, prolonged uncertainty, or, in some cases, Ministers departing from the recommendation of an Examining Authority (ExA). 

These challenges are not abstract observations. Both Rynd Smith and Menaka Sahai, former Planning Inspectorate Panel Chairs for nationally significant infrastructure projects in the energy and transport sectors, bring direct experience of how the system operates in practice — and where greater clarity and consistency can materially improve outcomes. 

Our consideration of the main causes for this accumulation of complexity, uncertainty, delay and cost within the NSIP system leads us to the view that it has often occurred where there have been older or out of date national policies, or national policy tests that are insufficiently clear about the performance or outcomes sought. 

The potentially corrosive effect of old or less well drafted policy was a theme  taken up by Government in the Planning & Infrastructure Act, which provides for a regular review of NPSs. But the problem runs deeper than just the frequency of review. Examining Authorities are required to assess NSIP applications against the fixed policy framework of the relevant NPS as they stand. By contrast, decisions are taken by Ministers operating in a political and strategic context that can shift rapidly. New development activity such as data centres emerge at pace. National priorities for infrastructure have become moving targets, sometimes changing within weeks or months. With the political and technical context moving faster than the policy framework, can policy in fact ever fully keep up? 

Drawing from our experience as former PINS examiners, we optimistically say, yes! Policy does not need to move at the same pace as politics to remain effective. What it can do, when regularly reviewed and well drafted, is give promoters, examiners, and decision-makers a stable framework within which judgement can be exercised. But how are we managing that shift to a more stable framework, and are we starting to see the benefits that the Government hopes for? 

Policy Progress and the Decisions It Still Avoids

The publication of the January 2026 update to the Energy NPS provides an important moment to take stock of where the UK stands in terms of delivering the infrastructure that we need, at the pace we need it to be delivered.  How is our national policy framework assisting delivery now, and where does it still fall short? 

The January update strengthens the macro level direction of travel for energy infrastructure.  The national ambition for clean power 2030 is set out.  There is a clearer articulation of critical national priorities, explicit reference to biodiversity net gain, and firmer policy for onshore wind. But these much-needed updates still do not fully answer the big questions: 

  • How do infrastructure decision-makers make hard choices when priorities collide?
  • How much weight should be given to national need versus local harm?
  • When does adverse impact become unacceptable?
  • What mitigation is required and what is simply desirable?

Too often, these are the questions that remain unresolved in policy and are left to judgement, project by project, in examination. 

In a our discussion about transport delivery with Richard Bowker CBE on the Green Signals rail podcast in October of 2025, we explored what needs to change in the policy arena, if major rail projects are to be better served by the NSIP regime. 

Prompted by the January 2026 NPS review, and building on that conversation, this article draws on our experience from all sides of the NSIP table, as former Planning Inspectorate (PINS) examiners, promoter-side advisers and delivery leads. It sets out how policy clarity can make project scrutiny more predictable and fairer for all. 

The Challenge the UK Faces

While the UK is striving to deliver world-class infrastructure at pace, our experience across major infrastructure consenting is that there is still uncertainty within the planning system which continues to slow progress, inflate costs, and undermine confidence. Major projects have to navigate approval pathways shaped by shifting policies, inconsistent expectations, and fragmented decision-making. At the centre of this challenge lies a critical truth: the infrastructure planning system is only as strong as the clarity of the policy that underpins it. 

Where the NSIP System Struggles

The NSIP regime is often criticised for being overly complex and slow. But the system itself is not inherently broken.  Friction arises when Government’s NPSs are out of date and therefore less clear and certain and open to greater debate. Where policy review processes move more slowly than the ambition for delivery, they do not address the prioritisation of critically important outcomes. Further issues emerge where NPS reviews lack precision and leave avoidable ambiguities in place.  Work is needed to make the NPSs fit to support and drive the current pace and scale of Infrastructure delivery. 

Specifically, when NPSs lack transparency and precision: 

  • Promoters and delivery bodies face unclear or moving targets, leading to costly and time-consuming abortive work.
  • Local communities lose trust in the rationale for decisions major projects do not mitigate harm and deliver benefits in a consistent way.  
  • Investors hesitate or withdraw because long-term predictability is missing.
  • Where policy is not clear in examination, the ground rules that the project ought to meet are contested at the same time as the project outcomes are. 
  • Decision-makers are left without a clear framework, making decisions more open to challenge.

Infrastructure can only move quickly if the rules guiding it are clear, rational and defensible. 

The Real Issues: Complexity, Cost, Communication

Linear infrastructure such as rail, energy or strategic road projects highlight the system’s vulnerabilities. These projects demand coordination across local authority or regional boundaries and are more likely to encounter a range of environmental constraints. These are also the schemes where policy ambiguity most often leads to additional examination scrutiny and evidence requests at later stages. 

Without strong policy foundations: 

  • Complexity multiplies;
  • Costs escalate; and
  • Confidence erodes.

A planning system that aspires to bring about a national transformation in infrastructure delivery to meet national needs must also deliver national confidence. Across the NPS suite as a whole, policy vintage is still uneven. Energy has moved fast recently: designated in 2011, revised in January 2024, with further targeted updates that followed in January 2026. Other sectors are at very different stages. The Ports NPS designated in 2012 remains in review (a draft revision was published in June 2025). The National Networks NPS first designated in December 2014 was updated in May 2024.  Water Resources was designated in 2023, and the Airports NPS, designated in 2018, is still awaiting its long overdue update on which critically important projects of international significance are waiting. 

This matters, because this inconsistency in policy ages changes how examinations behave. Where policy is outdated or unevenly updated, the examination becomes a place for interpretation rather than for assessment of compliance. This expands the issues list, leading to repeated rounds of questions, generates a need for more and more evidence, driving late-stage changes to plans.  

Importantly, it erodes confidence for communities, because mitigation of harm feels like a case-by-case negotiation rather than something that must meet a consistent threshold. While the case for macro level public benefit, like economic growth and net zero targets are easily made, the more granular level public benefit of a scheme is anyone’s best guess and contestable. The benefits to the local communities most affected by NSIPs then rely heavily on well-resourced or articulate residents or interest groups, rather than being logically derived from consistent policy positions. 

And for investors and promoters in such an uncertain landscape, there are many overarching questions that out-of-date policy cannot resolve. Where do we stand with this project? What must we do to get it right? How much risk attaches to our investment decision-making and how can we manage that risk? 

What Must Change

To unlock faster and fairer delivery, Government must ensure stronger alignment between project proposals and examination expectations, supported by clearer policy. 

  • Stronger resourcing for planning authorities, statutory consultees, and advisory bodies to ensure decisions are informed and timely.
  • Policy-led decision-making, where choices reflect strategic national priorities supported by evidence and social value.
  • Early and meaningful engagement that builds on local knowledge and reduces the risk of late-stage opposition.

A planning system that combines clarity of purpose with confidence in process can deliver the infrastructure the country needs, at the pace it needs it, delivering quality outcomes for local communities as well as more broadly to meet public interest. 

Why Planning Reform Matters for the Future of Infrastructure Planning

The PIA marks a material shift for NSIPs. It introduces changes to the acceptance stage so applications can be corrected; to the statutory consultation requirements to make engagement more meaningful; to the judicial review process to reduce delay risk. Alongside this, environmental reform continues to move toward more outcomes-led assessment and more strategic mitigation approaches. Most importantly, the PIA provides for a five yearly review cycle for NPSs, hopefully to ensure that they are brought up to date and remain so. 

These are meaningful reforms, but they mostly reshape process. The real confidence gap still sits upstream, in the policies that remain to be fully reviewed. Until NPSs are updated and made more certain, examinations will continue to carry a burden of unpredictability. 

The Path Forward

Infrastructure Matters continues to advocate for a planning system that works for investors, promoters, government and communities alike. By embedding clarity, consistency and communication at the heart of planning reform, the UK can rebuild trust and deliver infrastructure that meaningfully serves the national interest. 

Infrastructure Matters brings something rare: we’ve sat on all sides of the NSIP table. We have former PINS examiners, experts with developer side experience of examinations, and post consent delivery leads; all in one team. That means we know what stands up in examination and how to steer promoters away from the traps that cause costly mistakes and delays. And we also know how to help Government see where policy and process still leave avoidable gaps. That wide-angle lens is where our intelligence comes from, enabling us to partner with mega projects in the UK to move from planning to consent to delivery, whilst also advising on the development and improvement of the policy framework. 

The PIA is an important step forward. But process reform alone will not rebuild confidence. The next phase must focus on keeping NPSs current and clear on national priorities (which recent updates are beginning to do well), while also reducing ambiguity and removing the need for key decisions to be argued and re-argued, project by project. Clearer policy must do more of the heavy lifting upstream, so examination can focus on fair and consistent application of agreed policies and principles, rather than filling gaps. 

This is how the system can delivery infrastructure faster and yet fairly; attracting investment as well as greater public trust. 

Rynd Smith, LLB, MA (Planning), MRTPI, MPIA, FRSA is a Managing Director at Infrastructure Matters Ltd and a former Planning Inspectorate Panel Chair for nationally significant infrastructure projects in the energy and transport sectors

Menaka Sahai Dip Arch, MSc (Urban Design), MSc (Planning), MRTPI is a Director at Infrastructure Matters Ltd and a former Planning Inspectorate Panel Chair for nationally significant infrastructure projects in the energy and transport sectors