The Law Society of England and Wales has cautioned against extending Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) reforms, warning the government that existing evidence does not support the case for expansion to other planning regimes.
In its response to the Ministry of Justice consultation Judicial review reforms: Beyond Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, which closed on 26th August, the Law Society says the right to judicial review occupies “a vital place” in the constitutional balance of powers.
“Judicial review of a planning decision does not permit the court to second guess the merits of a development”, the consultation response points out. “It considers only whether the decision was taken in accordance with the law.
“Any reform must therefore balance efficiency with the maintenance of access to justice and meaningful public participation, including compliance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Aarhus Convention.”
The consultation proposed targeted reforms, including limiting repeated unsuccessful attempts to bring claims and introducing clearer court timetables, to prevent “weak and meritless challenges” from holding up nationally important projects, while protecting access to justice and the rule of law.
The proposals suggested building on reforms introduced through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and changes to court rules, which streamlined judicial review for NSIPs in the aim of reducing delays and ensuring cases are resolved more quickly.
But the Law Society warns that any reform should be evidence-led and based on formally evaluated, published data before it is used as a template for wider reform. With Section 12 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 commenced in February 2026 and applied only once, any extension based on case outcomes, length and cost of hearings and court resources “would be premature”, its response notes.
The Law Society has also urged caution in extending the regime to housing and the impact on access to justice for neighbourhood groups.
It said in its response: “Housing development is a far larger and more heterogeneous class than the energy and transport categories identified, and challenges to housing consents most commonly arise from the residents and community groups directly affected – precisely the population who lack significant resources, for whom oral-only permission, compressed deadlines and the loss of appeal rights would be most burdensome.”
Commenting on the consultation response, Law Society president Mark Evans said: “We support the UK government’s aim of improving certainty and reducing avoidable delay in major infrastructure and planning cases. However, any extension of judicial review reforms to other types of planning applications must be evidence-led, proportionate and properly resourced.
“Judicial review plays a vital constitutional role in upholding the rule of law, ensuring lawful decision-making and protecting access to justice. Before further restrictions are introduced, the government should publish clear data on whether comparable delays exist in other planning regimes and evaluate the impact of the existing reforms.”
