Planning reform hasn’t killed engagement - it’s raised the stakes

The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025 with a clear objective: to speed up the delivery of major development and infrastructure across the UK.

One of its most eye-catching changes is the removal of the statutory requirement for community consultation on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs).

At first glance, this looks like a green light for applicants to move faster by engaging less.

Applicants must still publicise proposals, and the Secretary of State will issue guidance on best practice at the pre-application stage. But the clear, mandatory consultation framework that has shaped NSIPs for more than a decade is gone.

In theory, that gives developers more freedom. In reality, it places more responsibility – and risk – on their shoulders.

“Done well, engagement can still accelerate delivery, de-risk consent, and improve outcomes.”

Under the new regime, applicants are required to define their own communications and engagement strategies rather than relying on clear, nationally prescribed rules.

That flexibility can be powerful. A well-judged, targeted approach can balance the needs of impacted communities with the imperative for speed and certainty, avoiding consultation fatigue and focusing engagement where it genuinely adds value.

But flexibility cuts both ways. Get the strategy wrong and the absence of a statutory process offers no safety net. Communities that feel bypassed do not quietly disappear; opposition tends to surface later, when it is harder, more expensive, and more time-consuming to resolve.

What looks like time saved at the outset can quickly be lost through delay, reputational damage, or political resistance.

Crucially, engagement has never been just about ticking a legislative box. Major infrastructure projects still depend on three fundamentals.

First, engaged communities who understand why a scheme is needed, what it will deliver, and how impacts will be managed.

Second, proactive local authorities who are prepared to support delivery on the ground and help navigate local sensitivities.

Third, a supportive economic and business community that can articulate the wider growth and investment case.

Legislation alone cannot secure any of these.

The real shift created by the Act is not the removal of engagement, but the transfer of accountability. Developers now own the question of how much engagement is enough, who matters most, and when conversations need to happen. Those decisions are strategic, not procedural.

For applicants willing to think carefully about communications from day one, this is an opportunity. Done well, engagement can still accelerate delivery, de-risk consent, and improve outcomes for schemes and communities alike. Done badly, it can slow everything down.

Planning reform hasn’t ended engagement. It has simply raised the stakes.