Legal challenges for major developments could soon be sped up following government proposals to expand the remit of recent judicial review reforms.
A consultation launched by the government looks at judicial review reforms introduced for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) last year, with the intention to also apply them to challenges to major transport, energy and housing developments, potentially reducing delays and the need for litigation.
Kiran Maher, Associate in our Planning and Environment team, takes a look at what could change and what it might mean for developers with major projects in the pipeline or for objectors seeking to challenge major planning decisions.
What has changed
In October 2025, the government streamlined judicial review for NSIPs through amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 along with the Civil Procedure Rules and Practice Directions. The changes removed the initial paper permission stage, sending every case straight to an oral hearing for permission, and cut off the right of appeal where a claim is ruled totally without merit. NSIP judicial reviews are designated as Significant Planning Court Claims to ensure that they are heard by specialist High Court Judges.
The government has claimed those changes are already speeding up how quickly challenges to major infrastructure are dealt with, and that judicial review "cannot be a vehicle for delay", insisting access to justice should be protected alongside faster delivery.
The new consultation, launched on 16 July 2026, asks whether the same approach should now apply more broadly – to major projects consented under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Transport and Works Act 1992, rather than just for NSIPs.
In the consultation
The government has outlined that it considers the reforms should be extended to energy schemes – including onshore wind projects over 50MW and electricity network projects and large grid-scale battery storage projects over 100MW – as well as significant housing developments (for example with more than 150 homes).
Respondents are being sought for views on:
- Extending NSIP-style judicial review reforms to major infrastructure projects and other strategically important developments, potentially including large housing schemes, road projects and solar farms.
- Tightening the procedural timetable for qualifying claims, so challenges move through the courts on a much shorter schedule than judicial review claims typically follow.
- Limiting repeated permission attempts once a claim has been found to have no merit.
- How changes could be targeted carefully, so they don't simply shift the burden onto an already stretched court system.
Who does this affect and will it work?
These proposals wouldn't affect all judicial review challenges to planning permissions – they're aimed at major infrastructure and other strategically significant developments.
If your projects fall into that bracket and are subject to a judicial review, the practical effect could be significant with faster court timetables and less room to manoeuvre once a claim is under way. In the reverse, if you are seeking to challenge a major development project by way of a judicial review, the proposed reforms will seek to reduce the number of attempts that can be made to obtain permission for a substantive hearing.
On paper, tighter timescales and fewer repeat attempts should make judicial review faster and more predictable. That's a reasonable goal, shared across much of the development sector.
The harder question is whether it can be achieved without tipping the balance too far. Judicial review exists to hold decision-makers to account and challenge the lawfulness of their decisions. A question remains as to how the reforms would work when considered against the access to justice provided under the Aarhus Convention, which seeks to ensure that challenges stay genuinely accessible and not prohibitively expensive.
Any reform will need careful drafting to protect that principle, while recognising that the courts will also need resources to cope with faster timetables. Get that balance wrong and confidence in the system is at risk, not just its speed.
What developers can do
If your projects could be caught by these reforms, the practical lesson is about timing – now and in future. To start with, ensure you have your voice heard by submitting a response to the consultation before it closes on 11:59pm on 27 August 2026.
This consultation is a genuine opportunity to shape how the rules will work, particularly on which projects qualify and how tight the new deadlines should be. It's worth responding, even briefly, if you have direct experience of how judicial review delay affects delivery of projects.
Looking ahead, if these reforms go through, the standard six-week window for bringing a judicial review claim is likely to be replaced for qualifying projects by something considerably shorter.
That cuts both ways: if you're facing a challenge, you'll want your legal team ready to respond fast, from the moment a decision is announced.
And if you think you may need to challenge a decision, don't wait to see how things unfold. Ensure you are getting legal advice from the outset of the application stage, long before the decision is made, so you aren’t caught out by a shortened deadline later on.
Thrings’ Planning and Environment lawyers have extensive experience in navigating complex local and national planning policy legislation and has successfully supported developers and local authorities through the approval and appeal processes. To find out more and for advice on your development proposals, please do get in touch.
