Judicial review reforms in planning: What are they and will they work?
5th October, 2026
The government's drive for growth has put judicial review of major development back under scrutiny. The direction of travel is clear: fewer procedural stages, tighter timetables and earlier identification of legal objections.
Whether these reforms will materially reduce delay is less clear. Many of the measures are aimed at filtering out weak claims more quickly, but judicial review has long contained permission-stage mechanisms designed to do precisely that. The detail therefore raises an important question: are these substantive reforms, or procedural refinements to an already streamlined system?
Summary
- The government is seeking to reduce delays caused by judicial review challenges to major development.
- Reforms to Development Consent Order (DCO) challenges are already in force, with further changes proposed for NSIPs and other major schemes.
- The Chancellor has indicated that reform may be expanded across “major infrastructure”, although what that means remains uncertain.
- The key question is whether these changes address a genuine source of delay or simply repackage procedures that already exist to weed out unmeritorious claims.
What has already changed for Development Consent Order challenges?
The first wave of reform applies to legal challenges concerning National Policy Statements and Development Consent Orders for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. It follows Lord Banner KC’s review and was implemented through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, together with changes to court procedure.
A single permission-stage hearing
The paper permission stage has been removed. This is an interesting reform given that the paper permission stage itself was introduced as a filtering mechanism so a judge can refuse permission on the papers, avoiding the cost and court time associated with an oral hearing. However, declining a refusal on the apers could always be the subject of a subsequent renewal hearing and under the new reforms a challenge must proceed directly to an oral permission hearing. If the claim is certified as “totally without merit”, there is no appeal to the Court of Appeal. In practical terms, a meritless claim no longer has three opportunities to secure permission.
Faster and more active case management
NSIP challenges are treated as Significant Planning Court Claims, with specialist judicial oversight, tighter procedural targets and more active case management. The aim is not to remove judicial review, but to ensure that weak claims fail sooner and arguable claims are determined more quickly.
Protection against permissions expiring
The 2025 Act also provides for the life of certain planning permissions and listed building consents to be extended where implementation is delayed by legal challenge. That reduces the risk of a consent expiring while proceedings are unresolved.
What further changes are proposed for Development Consent Orders?
A May 2026 policy paper proposed two more substantial mechanisms. Neither should yet be treated as part of the settled DCO regime.
Parliamentary authorisation
A narrow class of clean energy projects designated as being of Critical National Importance could receive parliamentary approval after the usual DCO examination. The approved DCO would have protection similar to primary legislation, substantially restricting challenge other than on human rights grounds. This would be a constitutional as well as a procedural change.
A pre-decision challenge window
For other NSIPs, including transport and water projects, a draft decision could be published before the DCO is finalised. Potential claimants would be expected to raise legal objections during a fixed window, allowing the Secretary of State to correct any defect before making the final order. A court could later take account of a failure to raise an available point at the proper stage when considering permission or relief.
Extending reform beyond the DCO regime
The Ministry of Justice consultation Judicial Review Reforms: Beyond Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects ran from 16 July to 27 August 2026. It asked whether elements of the NSIP regime should be applied more widely, particularly to strategically important development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and projects authorised under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
The options included fewer permission-stage attempts, designation as Significant Planning Court Claims, specialist case management and target timescales in the High Court and Court of Appeal. The consultation did not propose abolishing judicial review. Its focus was speed and procedural discipline. The government’s response is awaited.
The Chancellor’s latest announcement
On 7 September 2026, Chancellor John Healey said that judicial review reforms would be extended from critical energy schemes to all major infrastructure developments. That is an important policy signal, but not yet a complete legal scheme. It is not clear which projects will qualify, whether the parliamentary authorisation model will extend beyond critical energy, or how the announcement will interact with the Ministry of Justice consultation.
Practical implications
Promoters should benefit from earlier certainty and shorter periods of litigation risk. Decision-makers should expect greater emphasis on identifying and answering legal issues before a consent is finalised. Potential challengers may need to engage earlier, formulate objections more precisely and act within compressed timetables.
However, the government’s stated objective is to prevent “vexatious” and unmeritorious claims delaying major infrastructure. But planning practitioners may ask whether that was not already the purpose of the permission stage. Judicial review has long contained mechanisms for filtering out weak claims at an early stage.
Equally, while specialist judicial oversight sounds attractive in principle, specialist planning judges are a finite resource. If more cases are channelled through a specialist process, will claims actually be resolved more quickly, or simply join a different queue?
The Chancellor’s recent suggestion that reform should extend to “all major infrastructure” raises further questions. Does this simply mean NSIPs, or are major TCPA developments now in scope? And if the real target is “vexatious” litigation, is that a problem not already addressed by the permission filter?
As the reforms develop, practitioners may reasonably ask whether by these measures we are fixing a genuine cause of delay, or simply making the system look faster by removing procedural stages that already existed to separate weak cases from strong ones?
If you have any questions, please get in touch with Kamran Hyder, Partner and Head of Planning at Ward Hadaway, or Robert Glassford, Partner specialising in dispute resolution and public law.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
Contact a specialist
Follow us on LinkedIn
Keep up to date with all the latest updates and insights from our expert team
