NSIPs pre-application consultation changes: what are the details and impact?

Having come into effect on 18 December 2025, the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 signalled major changes to the consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). 

One part of these changes involved removing several pre-application requirements, including removing the statutory requirement for a consultation process. Understanding this guidance and how it impacts on your pre-application strategy is essential for successful, commercially viable developments.  

What does the new guidance on consultations say?

Since 24 July 2026, NSIP applicants have no longer been required to undertake a statutory pre-application consultation process (previously set out under sections 42 to 47 and related provisions of the Planning Act 2008). 

Specifically, it’s stated that there is “no statutory requirement for applicants to engage or consult during the pre-application stage”. 

Engagement vs consultation: what are the rules?

Another key part of this guidance is the distinction between engagement and consultation. 

Engagement is described as an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, communities and interested parties throughout project development. Consultation is defined as a more formal process that seeks views on specific proposals. 

Consultation is no longer regarded as the default mechanism at every stage of NSIP development. Instead, applicants must determine the extent of engagement and consultation is the most appropriate approach based on the circumstances of their project. 

What if your application started before 24 July 2026? 

If an applicant had already issued a section 46 notification to the Secretary of State before 24 July 2026, specific transitional provisions apply. 

These projects don’t automatically move across to the new regime and may be assessed against elements of the previous framework. Further guidance is expected to clarify how such projects should complete the final stages of application preparation and acceptance. 

Why have these changes been made?

These changes were designed to make the pre-application consultation process less time-consuming and resource-intensive, with more focus on achieving meaningful outcomes rather than procedural compliance.

This returns to the original intention of the NSIP regime - to streamline the planning process while ensuring appropriate stakeholder engagement.

This reform is also designed to bring the following benefits: 

• Accelerate the delivery of NSIPs, in some cases removing up to 12 months from project timelines with less lengthy pre-application programmes
• Reduce delay, cost and administrative burden for applicants, consultees and local authorities, while maintaining targeted and meaningful stakeholder involvement 
• Improve the quality, maturity and robustness of applications entering the examination process
• Giving applicants greater flexibility to determine the nature and extent of engagement appropriate to their project’s scale, complexity and impacts, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach
• Better accommodate project evolution during pre-application and reduce the need for repeat consultation exercises when changes are made (without having to set unnecessarily broad Order Limits).

Overall, this means emphasis is shifting away from demonstrating compliance with a standardised consultation process. Instead, developers can tailor their pre-application strategy to their projects needs, while still ensuring effective engagement with the relevant stakeholders.  

What’s the impact on land assembly?

Early and proactive landowner engagement should remain a core element of project development. Maintaining an ongoing dialogue with affected landowners can help identify and resolve issues before they become entrenched and allows for reasonable design refinements at an early stage.

Although there’s no longer a statutory consultation requirement, projects should still establish clear programme milestones, design freezes and engagement timelines throughout the pre-application stage. 

These provide structured opportunities for feedback, issue resolution and design refinement. As a result:

• Landowners can meaningfully influence project development where appropriate
• Late design changes that create uncertainty for affected parties and place pressure on submission programmes can be avoided
• Sufficient time is made available to engage with landowners and prepare application documents robust enough for examination
• A safer, more controlled level of transparent boundary sharing is made possible
• Applicants can build a clear record of genuine, meaningful engagement and demonstrate compliance with the relevant compulsory acquisition tests
• Examination risks and objections are minimised, helping to drive a more efficient examination process.

How does this influence stakeholder engagement?

While the statutory pre-application consultation process has been removed, applicants will still need to demonstrate appropriate engagement with those who may be affected by, or have an interest in, their project. 

Communities, landowners, local authorities, statutory consultees and interest groups will continue to expect meaningful dialogue. If anything, the absence of a prescriptive framework places greater responsibility on applicants to demonstrate how they have listened, responded and acted reasonably throughout project development.

Previously, success was measured by showing how commitments had been delivered, responses had been logged, and procedural steps had been completed. The guidance reinforces how stakeholder engagement is a fundamental part of shaping better project development, rather than a mechanism for meeting statutory requirements. 

With the new guidance, attention is likely to centre on whether applicants have spoken to the right people, at the right time, in the right way, and whether those conversations have informed decision-making. The quality and purpose of engagement is becoming more important than the volume undertaken.

As such, engagement programmes can now be tailored around specific project characteristics, such as its impacts, stakeholders and the issues that matter most. Project teams can focus on where engagement is most likely to add value, resolve concerns and support informed design development.

Applicants should therefore focus on building a clear and defensible narrative around their engagement activity. Why were particular stakeholders engaged? Why were certain approaches adopted? How did engagement influence project decisions? These are likely to become increasingly important questions at acceptance and examination.

How does this affect land referencing?

The fundamental requirement to identify all land interests affected by the project through a process of diligent inquiry has not changed (Category 1, 2 and 3 definitions remain unaffected). 

However, the ability to design a land referencing programme is no longer punctuated with a full stop. Now, Category 2 and 3 parties can be identified later in the programme than would have previously been possible under the old regime. 

This provides potential cost savings to applicants by allowing them to target diligent enquiries directly based on a more refined design. 

From a land referencing perspective, applicants and land referencing teams will need to strike the correct balance between increased levels of design flexibility during the pre-application phase and providing sufficient time to ensure the delivery of accurate Books of Reference.      

What has shifted in environment and planning?

The removal of statutory pre-application milestones has eliminated the rigid Preliminary Environmental Information Report framework and its associated timelines. This allows projects to progress with greater flexibility. Plus, success is now determined by how robust, well-evidenced and capable of examination the final application is. 

A more agile approach to Order Limits is also supported, with boundary adjustments carrying less risk and enabling projects to accommodate design evolution without triggering mandatory repeat consultations. Together, these changes encourage a more pragmatic, mature and adaptable approach to project development.

To achieve environmental and planning success under the new guidance, consider adopting the following:

• Working closely with the Planning Inspectorate from inception
• Building dynamic environmental assessment pipelines instead of rigid schedules
• Agreeing on necessary environmental evidence before gathering data
• Using informal, early stakeholder engagement to identify specific environmental constraints and inform technical data-gathering
• Keeping a running dialogue of stakeholder engagement through to determination
• Delaying expensive, full-scale environmental data gathering until Order Limits and boundaries are confirmed.
• Resolving landowner design requests early to avoid sudden pre-submission modifications that invalidate existing data and require renewed or additional surveys
• Working collaboratively across the whole project team to establish clear programme gateways and lock project parameters before final assessment and mitigation proposals

Navigating changes with a collaborative approach

By taking a joined-up approach to these regime changes across all our teams, at DM we put our clients in the best position to take advantage of the new guidance. Whether it’s adjusting your stakeholder engagement approach or your environment and planning strategy, we can support you to get all the expected benefits from these pre-application changes.