Planning for infrastructure

Infrastructure is a broad term which can encompass a wide range of sectors and types of projects, ranging from schools, hospitals, roads and railway lines to wind, waste and water projects, oil and gas facilities, pipelines and processing plants. Infrastructure projects are often high value and complex and the parties will need to understand, and ensure that the contractual arrangements in place provide for the commercial, strategic, technical, geographical and political factors and the associated risks involved. Due to the broad spectrum of issues involved, infrastructure projects will often involve lawyers from a number of practice areas.

This subtopic looks at planning consent for major infrastructure projects under the regime set out in the Planning Act 2008 (PA 2008).

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs)

PA 2008 process was introduced to streamline the decision-making process for NSIPs for transport, energy, water and waste infrastructure, making it fairer and faster for communities and developers alike. NSIPs include:

•
electricity generation projects
•
overhead electric lines
•
underground gas storage
•
Liquefied Natural Gas facilities
•
gas reception facilities
•
gas transporter pipelines
•
other pipelines
•
highways
•
airports
•
harbour facilities
•
railways

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Public Law News

Scottish Government publishes Disability Equality Plan

The Scottish Government has published its Disability Equality Plan. Developed in collaboration with core funded Disabled People’s Organisations, the plan sets out a range of actions intended to embed disability competence within the Scottish Government and improve outcomes for disabled people through evidence-based policy development and accountability measures. The document details actions and next steps, including a phased approach to enhancing the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) regime in Scotland, which will include efforts to ‘improve’ the Scottish PSED specific regulations within the limits of devolved competence. The plan also mentions use of legislative and non-legislative means to deliver social care reform, including legislation to reform information records and standards, and procurement. A progress report is anticipated in 2026, along with a new Disability Equality Plan.

Damages are an adequate remedy in procurement dispute despite no sufficiently serious breach (Millbrook Healthcare Ltd v Devon County Council)

Public Law analysis: In Millbrook Healthcare Ltd v Devon County Council, the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) held that the assessment of whether a breach is sufficiently serious is not directly relevant to determining whether damages will be an adequate remedy at the interim stage of a procurement dispute, such that damages may still be awarded. In particular, the TCC considered well-known case law authorities, which provide that damages are only available in procurement challenges where the contracting authority's breach is ‘sufficiently serious’ (a test derived in EU law). The point was recently considered in Braceurself v NHS England, in which the TCC held that a sufficiently serious breach should be determined by looking at the nature and quality of the breach, rather than the consequences. The effect of the breach itself was not decisive in establishing whether it was sufficiently serious to award damages. However, in Millbrook, the TCC had to consider (i) whether there had been a ‘sufficiently serious breach’ and (ii) if so, whether damages would be an adequate remedy. Written by James Lupton, director, Elinor Jackson, senior associate and Sam Pringle, senior associate at DWF Law LLP.

Greenhouse gas emissions under scrutiny in development consent order decision (R (Boswell) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and others)

Planning analysis: The Court of Appeal has dismissed the claimant’s appeal in which he sought a statutory judicial review of the Secretary of State (SoS)’s decision to grant permission for a gas power station with carbon capture and storage at Teeside. The appeal focused on three grounds, all concerned with the way the decision assessed and weighed in the balance the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the development. These had been acknowledged to be significant for environmental impact assessment (EIA) purposes and had been given significant weight in the planning balance. The first ground alleged an internal logical flaw in the SoS’s reasoning; the second alleged that the SoS had erred in her interpretation or application of a paragraph of the relevant National Policy Statement (NPS); and the third alleged that the SoS failed to reach a reasoned conclusion since she failed to assess the significance of the GHG emissions against a benchmark or other adequate means of contextualisation. All three grounds were rejected in decisive terms by the court. Written by Harriet Townsend KC, barrister, at Cornerstone Barristers.

Wild Justice files application for judicial review of Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Wild Justice, a conservation group, filed an application for judicial review in the High Court on 11 June 2025, challenging a claim made by the Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner, in April 2025 that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill would not reduce environmental protections. Wild Justice argues that Rayner failed to provide a legal rationale for her statement and intends to challenge it on the grounds that it is either legally incorrect or irrational. The challenge, supported by a legal opinion from expert planning barristers, contends that the Bill weakens existing environmental protections by removing the requirement to prove—beyond reasonable scientific doubt—that a proposed development will not adversely affect a protected site. The Office for Environmental Protection, named as an interested party in the claim, has also criticised the Bill, describing it as a ‘regression’ for environmental protections in law.