Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill: A move in the wrong direction

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill aims to speed up the planning process and associated decision-making. Part 1 of the Bill introduces changes in the context of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) that warrant attention. First, the Bill removes the legal duty to consult at the pre-application stage of the NSIP development consent process. In particular it removes the public's legal right to participate at this stage. Second, it makes changes to the judicial review process which raise questions over the balance between the swift administration of justice and access to justice. This commentary argues that combined the proposed reforms reflect a move that supports a rhetoric of ‘challenge culture’. 1 This rhetoric positions procedural and administrative law as an obstacle to infrastructure development and is something we should not ignore.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Environmental Law Review
Published
2025-08-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614529251366831
Primary Topic
Public-Private Partnership Projects
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill: A move in the wrong direction

Joanne Hawkins
Environmental Law Review
Public-Private Partnership Projects
article

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill: A move in the wrong direction

Joanne Hawkins
article en

Abstract

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill aims to speed up the planning process and associated decision-making. Part 1 of the Bill introduces changes in the context of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) that warrant attention. First, the Bill removes the legal duty to consult at the pre-application stage of the NSIP development consent process. In particular it removes the public's legal right to participate at this stage. Second, it makes changes to the judicial review process which raise questions over the balance between the swift administration of justice and access to justice. This commentary argues that combined the proposed reforms reflect a move that supports a rhetoric of ‘challenge culture’. 1 This rhetoric positions procedural and administrative law as an obstacle to infrastructure development and is something we should not ignore.

Environmental Law ReviewVol. 27(3)
University of Leeds (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Public-Private Partnership Projects
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.