Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (2025 c.18, partial commencement at time of writing)
This content was produced with the help of AI and may contain mistakes or be out of date. Check clause numbers, dates and statutory details against the primary source before relying on them. Disclaimer
Why This Matters for Part 3
The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 is the most heavily tested new statute at Part 3 in the 2025 to 2026 cycle. Examiners probe candidates' awareness of the headline reforms (faster NSIP consenting, narrowed statutory consultee list, mandatory housing targets, Environmental Outcomes Reports replacing the EIA regime), the practical implications for client advice, and the architect's continuing duty under ARB Code 2025 Standard 1 to maintain competence in the new regime. Because the Act is in partial commencement at the time of writing, candidates are expected to demonstrate awareness of which provisions are in force and which await commencement order rather than memorise every section number.
The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 received Royal Assent in 2025 and entered partial commencement during the autumn of that year, with substantial provisions awaiting commencement order at time of writing. The Act represents the most significant overhaul of the English planning system since the Localism Act 2011. Its headline reforms are: streamlined consenting for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) including faster determination targets; a narrowed list of statutory consultees with reduced response windows; reformed Planning Court procedures including a new fast-track for planning judicial review; mandatory housing targets for local planning authorities and a strengthened five year housing land supply rule; reformed local plan production timelines and design code requirements; and the introduction of Environmental Outcomes Reports (EORs) to replace the EU-derived Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) regimes. Architects acting in any advisory capacity on planning must update their competence under the new framework.
Headline Reforms and NSIP Consenting
Streamlined NSIP Procedure
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 Part 1 (NSIP reforms, commencement order required for several provisions)
The Act includes provisions to streamline the Development Consent Order (DCO) procedure for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects under the Planning Act 2008 framework. The reforms reduce the pre-application consultation burden, set tighter examination timetables, and create a fast-track route for projects meeting specified criteria. Several specific section numbers are subject to commencement order at time of writing; candidates should refer to current commencement guidance for in-force provisions.
If asked about NSIP changes, focus on the policy direction rather than specific section numbers: faster determination, reduced pre-application burden, tighter examination timetables. The Act is in partial commencement; do not memorise section numbers that have not yet been brought into force.
Faster Determination Targets
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions on local authority determination targets)
The Act includes provisions to tighten the time within which local planning authorities must determine planning applications. The existing statutory targets under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (typically eight weeks for minor and thirteen weeks for major applications) remain the starting point, but the new regime introduces stronger consequences for repeated under-performance, including potential designation of underperforming authorities.
Brownfield Presumption
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions amending NPPF brownfield policy)
The Act strengthens the policy presumption in favour of development on previously developed (brownfield) land. The presumption is intended to direct housing growth onto brownfield sites within existing urban areas in priority to greenfield release. The exact statutory mechanism is subject to commencement and to revisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which carries weight as a material consideration even though the NPPF is policy rather than statute.
When advising clients on site selection, the brownfield presumption is now a strategic factor. Greenfield proposals require stronger justification under the post-PIA regime. The exact policy weight depends on the local plan and the latest NPPF version, both of which architects must check at advisory stage.
Statutory Consultee Reforms
Narrowed Statutory Consultee List
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions reforming the statutory consultee regime)
The Act includes provisions to narrow the list of statutory consultees on planning applications, on the basis that the existing list (which extends to bodies such as Sport England, Theatres Trust, and others) had become a source of delay disproportionate to the planning benefit. The reforms reframe some former statutory consultees as discretionary or non-statutory consultees whose responses local planning authorities may consider but are not bound to seek.
Reduced Response Windows
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions on consultee response periods)
The Act tightens the period within which statutory consultees must respond to planning consultations, with the policy aim of preventing consultation delay from extending the overall determination period. The detailed periods are to be set by secondary legislation under the Act. Architects advising on planning timelines should check the current secondary instruments rather than relying on the headline policy commitment.
Consultee Performance Monitoring
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions on consultee monitoring)
The Act introduces performance monitoring for statutory consultees, with public reporting of response times and quality of input. The aim is to create accountability for consultee delay. The mechanism complements the local planning authority performance regime, creating end-to-end visibility of where in the consenting process delays originate.
Planning Court Reforms
Fast-Track Planning Judicial Review
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions on Planning Court procedure); Civil Procedure Rules Part 54
The Act includes provisions for a fast-track procedure in the Planning Court for judicial review of planning decisions, particularly for NSIP DCOs and major planning permissions. The aim is to reduce the period between decision and final court resolution, on the basis that protracted legal challenge has been one of the major sources of delay on infrastructure projects. The detailed procedure is to be set out in revisions to Civil Procedure Rules Part 54.
If asked about the litigation risk of a major scheme, the post-PIA position is that judicial review challenges are heard faster but on tighter procedural grounds. The window for bringing challenge remains six weeks under CPR Part 54.5 unless the new procedural rules vary it. Always check current CPR provisions.
Standing and Permission
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions on JR permission stage)
The Act includes provisions intended to tighten the permission stage of planning judicial review, including refinements to the standing test and to the totally without merit (TWM) gateway. These are designed to filter out unmeritorious challenges at an early stage, reducing the burden on substantive hearings and reducing the delay imposed on lawful decisions.
Interaction with TCPA s.288
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s.288 (as modified by PIA 2025 provisions)
Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides the statutory route to challenge planning appeal decisions in the High Court. The PIA 2025 includes provisions to modernise this route and align it with the new fast-track planning JR procedure. The s.288 six week challenge window from the date of the decision remains the operative time limit.
Local Plan Reforms
Mandatory Housing Targets
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions on housing target methodology)
The Act reinstates and strengthens the requirement for local planning authorities to plan for a mandatory minimum housing requirement derived from a standard methodology. The mandatory targets are a response to the chronic under-delivery of new housing relative to national need. The exact methodology is to be set in revised NPPF policy and secondary legislation. Local authorities failing to meet target through their adopted local plan are exposed to the five year supply rule and the tilted balance.
Five Year Housing Land Supply Rule
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions confirming the 5 year supply test); NPPF
The Act confirms and strengthens the five year housing land supply test: an LPA must demonstrate a deliverable supply of housing land for at least five years from the date of decision. Where the LPA cannot demonstrate this, the policies of the local plan that relate to the supply of housing are deemed out of date and the tilted balance in favour of grant applies. The five year rule is one of the most consequential decision-tipping provisions in English planning law.
If advising a client on a contentious housing application, the five year supply position of the LPA is the first thing to check. If the LPA is short, the tilted balance applies and the presumption shifts in favour of grant. Many otherwise borderline schemes succeed on this point alone.
Design Code Requirements
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions on local design codes)
The Act requires local planning authorities to prepare local design codes (or to adopt the National Model Design Code) covering matters such as character, density, materials, public realm, and sustainability. Design codes have the status of a material consideration and, where adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document or written into the local plan, can be determinative in decision-making. Architects must engage with adopted design codes at the pre-application stage of any new project.
Local Plan Production Timeline
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions on plan-making timetables)
The Act tightens the timetable within which local planning authorities must produce and adopt local plans, with intermediate review milestones to prevent the historic problem of plans becoming long-out-of-date. The reformed plan-making system is intended to be faster, more proportionate, and more responsive to changing housing need.
Environmental Outcomes Reports (EORs)
Replacement of EIA
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions introducing the EOR regime)
The Act introduces the Environmental Outcomes Report (EOR) regime to replace the EU-derived Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The EOR is structured around defined environmental outcomes (such as biodiversity net gain, water quality, air quality, and decarbonisation) rather than the procedural assessment-and-mitigation framework of the EIA regime. Detailed regulations under the Act will define the outcomes and the projects to which the EOR regime applies.
EOR is one of the most likely current exam topics. Key headline: EIA is being replaced; EOR is outcomes-based not process-based; the regime applies progressively as commencement orders bring it into force. Do not assert EIA is repealed in entirety until you have checked the current commencement position.
Outcome Categories and Material Considerations
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (provisions on EOR outcomes); Environment Act 2021
The EOR regime requires applicants for major projects to assess and report on defined environmental outcomes. The outcomes are aligned with the targets in the Environment Act 2021, including biodiversity net gain (minimum 10 per cent under the Environment Act 2021 Schedule 7A), water and air quality, and net zero commitments under the Climate Change Act 2008. The EOR is a material consideration in the planning decision and, depending on the project, may form part of the decision-making record.
Transition Period and SEA
Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (transitional provisions)
The Act includes transitional provisions for projects already subject to the EIA or SEA regimes at the date of EOR commencement. The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) regime for plans and programmes is also subject to replacement under the EOR framework. Architects on long-running projects must check whether their project is on the EIA or the EOR track and ensure the appropriate environmental documentation is being prepared.
The Architect's Advisory Obligations
Pre-Application Engagement
ARB Code 2025 Standard 3; PIA 2025 provisions on pre-application
The PIA 2025 emphasises the value of substantive pre-application engagement with the local planning authority and statutory consultees, and the new regime makes pre-application engagement more time-critical given the tightened response windows. The architect's role in pre-application is to scope the planning policy context, to identify the relevant statutory consultees and design code requirements, and to brief the client on the likely planning risk profile. Pre-application engagement is now a standard Stage 1 / Stage 2 task on any non-trivial planning application.
Design Quality and Local Design Codes
ARB Code 2025 Standard 1; PIA 2025 design code provisions
The architect must engage with the adopted local design code (or the National Model Design Code where adopted locally) as a primary determinant of the design approach. Failure to engage with the design code can be a ground for refusal even where the scheme would otherwise be policy compliant. The ARB Code 2025 Standard 1 obligation to be competent in the work undertaken extends to competence in the applicable planning policy framework, including any local design code.
Competence and Continuing Professional Development
ARB Code 2025 Standard 1; PIA 2025 (transition obligations)
The introduction of the PIA 2025 regime imposes a CPD obligation on every architect undertaking planning advisory work. ARB Code 2025 Standard 1 requires competence in the work undertaken. Until the PIA 2025 reforms are fully embedded, an architect must keep abreast of commencement orders, NPPF revisions, and the introduction of EOR provisions. Failure to maintain competence in the new regime is a Standard 1 breach.
Examiners may ask: 'how do you maintain competence in a rapidly changing planning landscape?' Answer with reference to ARB Code 2025 Standard 1 CPD obligations, RIBA CPD Core Curriculum, attendance at planning law updates from RIBA / TCPA / IHBC, and the practice's KM system for policy updates.
Public Interest and Honesty
ARB Code 2025 Standard 2; PIA 2025
Where a proposed scheme conflicts with the public interest (for example a clear environmental or heritage harm not properly mitigated), the architect must advise the client honestly under ARB Code 2025 Standard 2. The strengthened design code and EOR framework under the PIA 2025 sharpens the architect's exposure where they fail to advise candidly. Architects cannot rely on planning officer scrutiny alone to police design or environmental quality.
TCPA s.78 appeal versus PIA 2025 streamlined consent for a major scheme
Scenario
You are advising a developer client on a 350 unit residential scheme on brownfield land at the edge of a town. The LPA has indicated it is minded to refuse on density and design grounds. The client has two strategic options: pursue a TCPA s.78 appeal against the anticipated refusal, or restructure the scheme to meet the criteria for streamlined consent under the new PIA 2025 procedure. The client wants advice on cost, timing, design quality, and judicial review exposure. The Act is in partial commencement; some PIA streamlined provisions are in force and some are awaiting commencement order.
Analysis
Option 1: TCPA s.78 appeal. The client allows the LPA to refuse, then appeals to the Planning Inspectorate under TCPA s.78. Cost: appeal fees plus consultant fees, plus prospective award of costs if the appeal is unreasonably resisted. Timing: written representations appeals typically determined within 26 to 30 weeks; hearing or inquiry route 6 to 12 months. Design: the inspector decides on the original or amended scheme; the design is essentially the LPA proposal. JR exposure: any decision can be challenged by statutory application under TCPA s.288 within 6 weeks of the decision; the JR fast-track under PIA 2025 may apply to expedite the hearing. Option 2: PIA 2025 streamlined consent. This requires the scheme to meet the qualifying criteria under the Act (which, at the time of writing, are subject to commencement order on specific thresholds). Cost: higher upfront design and EOR cost because the streamlined route demands a more developed pre-application position; lower delay-related holding costs. Timing: the streamlined determination targets shorten the headline programme. Design: greater alignment with local design code and EOR outcomes is required; the design must be substantively superior to qualify. JR exposure: any decision remains subject to JR but the fast-track procedure under PIA 2025 expedites the hearing. The brownfield site is favourable under the PIA 2025 brownfield presumption. The five year housing land supply position of the LPA must be checked: if the LPA cannot demonstrate five years' supply, the tilted balance under the NPPF applies and the appeal route may have a stronger merits case for grant. If the LPA has supply, the streamlined consent route is more attractive because it removes the refusal-and-appeal cycle. The client must also be advised that the streamlined route requires investment in design and environmental documentation that may be wasted if the scheme does not qualify. Pre-application engagement under PIA 2025 is now time-critical because consultee response windows have been compressed.
Outcome
You advise the client to pursue a parallel-track strategy: commence pre-application engagement under the PIA 2025 streamlined route while preserving the TCPA s.78 appeal as the fallback. Begin with the local design code review and the EOR scoping exercise. Confirm the LPA's five year housing land supply position with the planning consultant. If the streamlined route is qualified within four months, proceed with that route. If not, accept the LPA refusal and proceed to s.78 appeal under the new fast-track JR-resistant procedure. Maintain CPD records of your engagement with the PIA 2025 reforms under ARB Code 2025 Standard 1, and document the advisory reasoning clearly so the client cannot later allege you failed to identify the streamlined consent option.