Monthly Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects Newsletter
2026 New Year issue
2026 looks set to be a crucial year for infrastructure planning in the UK. As we welcome in the new year, this update highlights some of the most interesting and topical events you may have missed in the closing months of 2025 within the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects ("NSIP") world, together with our opinions on key issues that matter to our clients.
If you have any questions on anything mentioned in this newsletter, or feedback to share on what you would find useful, please get in touch using the contact details at the end.
To receive regular updates and analyses on infrastructure planning direct to your inbox, including this monthly newsletter, subscribe to our blog, Energy and Infrastructure Consenting Notes.
1. Review of Airports NPS and next steps for Heathrow expansion
Summary
The Government has identified the scheme promoted by Heathrow Airport as the scheme to take forward in informing the ongoing review of the Airports National Policy Statement ("ANPS"). The Heathrow proposal was favoured to an alternative option put forward by the Arora Group/Heathrow West Limited.
Key facts
- The Government announced the review of the ANPS on 22 October 2025 – here.
- At that point, the Government confirmed two potential schemes remained under active consideration to deliver expansion at Heathrow – one put forward by the Airport, and a separate proposal from the Arora Group. The Government sought further information from both schemes, with a view to determining which scheme would be selected to be taken forward to inform the ANPS review – here.
- The Government confirmed the selection of Heathrow's scheme on 25 November 2025 – here. In making the decision, the Government noted they considered Heathrow's proposal to be "the most credible and deliverable option, principally due to the relative maturity of its proposal, the comparative level of confidence in the feasibility and resilience of its surface access plans and the stronger comfort it provides in relation to the efficient, resilient and sustainable operations of the airport over the long-term."
- A draft ANPS will be published for consultation by summer 2026, with the Government targeting a decision on the anticipated DCO application by the end of this parliament.
Further analysis
Others will be better placed to comment on the relative merits of the respective proposals which made the ''final two'', but having made their decision, the Government has now set itself a target timescale of 18 months to complete the ANPS review process. Alongside consideration of the Heathrow scheme itself, the Government has noted the scope of the review would consider updated aviation forecasts and how any changes in policy and legislation – in particular relating to climate and the environment – since its original designation in 2018 may need to be reflected. They also noted the review would consider how the scheme's obligations in respect of the Government's four key tests for airport expansion will be met:
- that it contributes to economic growth across the country
- that it meets air quality obligations
- that it is consistent with noise commitments
- that it aligns with legal obligations on climate change, including net zero
In respect of the latter, they have confirmed they are seeking the independent opinion of the Climate Change Committee ("CCC").
Considering the extent of litigation which followed the original ANPS designation, it is reasonable to assume that any decision resulting from the review of the ANPS will be subject to considerable scrutiny and, in all likelihood, further legal challenge. It is unlikely that the reforms proposed in respect of judicial review will represent a meaningful deterrent or material dent in such claims being pursued, although the Government's focus on speeding up the processing of judicial review claims by the courts may make resolution somewhat faster than in the past.
It will be interesting to see how the review process is managed alongside the development of any DCO application, which one would imagine would be necessary if the Government's aim of reaching a decision on such an application within this parliamentary term is to be realised.
The announcements also recognise other parallel workstreams around airspace modernisation (a further consultation launched alongside the Heathrow announcement - here) and the CAA's consideration of the appropriate regulatory framework to support any delivery of expansion at Heathrow (again, a consultation was launched in parallel (here)). These will clearly have a material impact on the development, promotion and, if successful, subsequent implementation of the third runway project.
Finally, to add to the complexity, whilst the Government announced their preferred scheme to inform the ANPS, they were not definitive as to the promoter. This was recognised by the Arora Group in responding to the decision to favour Heathrow's proposal – "The Arora Group accepts today's announcement by the UK Government, stating its preference for a longer runway at an expanded Heathrow instead of our own Heathrow West plans. We welcome the Government not having chosen a promoter for the scheme and that the option for a promoter other than Heathrow Airport Limited remains possible...We are now reviewing how our plans will be adjusted to the longer runway scheme with the intention that we commence our own Development Consent Order."
2. Flurry of NSIP legal challenges as new permission stage rules come into effect
Summary
The closing months of 2025 saw a series of judgments handed down and new claims lodged for judicial review of NSIP-related decisions, including in relation to the Sizewell C, Luton Airport expansion, Gatwick Airport Northern Runway Project and Stonestreet Green Solar project DCOs. This comes as new procedural rules that replace the paper permission stage for NSIP challenges with an oral hearing come into effect.
Key facts
- Judgment has been handed down in R (LADACAN) v Secretary of State for Transport & another [2025] EWHC 3206 (Admin), with Lang J in the Administrative Court dismissing the objector group's claim on all five grounds (with the sixth having been stayed (ie put on hold) pending the outcome of the legal challenge to the Jet Zero Strategy – which itself has now been dismissed and permission to appeal refused).
- Permission to bring judicial review was refused by Mould J and the claim certified as totally without merit at an oral hearing in the Administrative Court in R (Together Against Sizewell C Limited) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero & another (2025) (no neutral citation), where an objector group to the Sizewell C nuclear power station had sought judicial review of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero's ("SSESNZ") decision not to unilaterally revoke or change the Sizewell C DCO. HSF Kramer is instructed by Sizewell C Limited ("SZC").
- Two claims for judicial review of the Secretary of State for Transport's ("SST") decision to grant development consent for the Gatwick Northern Runway Project have been lodged by an objector group and an individual chair of a local community group, being the first claims subject to the revised practice direction that requires NSIP challenges to proceed straight to an oral permission hearing rather than have a decision on the papers. In this case, given the two interlinked claims and the large number of grounds, a rolled-up hearing has been ordered for 20 – 23 January 2026. HSF Kramer is instructed by Gatwick Airport Limited ("GAL").
- A claim for judicial review of the SSESNZ decision to grant development consent for the Stonestreet Green Solar project has been lodged by Aldington and Bonnington Parish Council. HSF Kramer is instructed by the developer, EPL 001 Limited.
Further analysis
Luton Airport judgment
In 2023 Luton Rising submitted an application for development consent to redevelop and expand Luton Airport to increase capacity from 19 million to 32 million passengers per year. Consent was granted by the SST in April 2025, and this consent was challenged by objector group LADACAN on six grounds.
Ground 6 was parasitic on a separate legal challenge to the lawfulness of the Jet Zero Strategy (R (Possible (The 10:10 Foundation)) v SST [2025] EWHC 1101 (Admin)). The Administrative Court had dismissed that claim in June 2025 and Ground 6 in LADACAN was stayed pending the outcome of an application for permission to appeal that decision. On 12 December 2025 the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal at an oral hearing and thus this ground will now fall away.
The remaining five grounds in LADACAN were dismissed by Lang J in a judgment that provides useful guidance on the application of the Supreme Court's decision in Finch to the assessment of greenhouse gas emissions in an aviation context, as well as on the nature of the Climate Change Act 2008 as a "pollution control regime" and what is required by the amended duty in section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. A full commentary on the judge's reasoning is for another time, but the judgment can be read in full here.
Sizewell C judgment
In July 2022, development consent was granted for the Sizewell C nuclear power station in Suffolk. That grant of consent was subject to a legal challenge by objector group Together Against Sizewell C ("TASC"), which was dismissed in the High Court and Court of Appeal, before being refused permission to appeal by the Supreme Court.
In early 2025, TASC wrote to the SSESNZ asking that he unilaterally revoke or vary the Sizewell C DCO on the basis that there had been discussion in the separate nuclear site licensing process for the power station that additional flood defences may be required in a greater than reasonably foreseeable climate change scenario many decades in the future. The minister responding on behalf of the SSESNZ observed that it was open to SZC to request a change to the DCO if required and declined to unilaterally intervene. TASC challenged that decision on four grounds, being breach of the Habitats Regulations, misdirection in law, breach of the duty of inquiry and irrationality.
In an oral judgment on 12 December 2025, Mould J refused permission to bring judicial review on all four of TASC's grounds and certified them each totally without merit. Acknowledging the uncertainty as to whether the additional flood defences will ever even be required, and if so, what their design would be, Mould J concluded that consideration of the effects of any such defences (including cumulatively with the power station) could properly be deferred to a later stage when consent was sought for any such defences. TASC has applied for permission to appeal Mould J's decision.
Gatwick Airport Northern Runway Project challenges
As we wrote about here, on 21 September 2025 the SST granted development consent for the Gatwick Airport Northern Runway Project, a series of airfield reconfiguration works and associated terminal and highway improvements to allow the airport's existing northern runway to be brought into routine use alongside the main runway.
Two claims for judicial review of that decision have been lodged, by Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions ("CAGNE") and the chairman of the Gatwick Airport Conservation Campaign ("GACC"), with a combined total of 12 grounds spanning matters including environmental impact assessment of greenhouse gas emissions, alleged misinterpretation of aviation policy and irrationality and unlawfulness in noise, socioeconomic and wastewater conclusions. Following a case management hearing before Mould J on 9 December 2025, a rolled-up hearing has been listed for four days between 20 – 23 January 2026 to hear both claims together.
These claims represent the first legal challenges to an NSIP since Civil Procedure Rule Practice Direction ("PD") 54D was amended to pre-emptively implement the first of the Government's reforms to judicial review of NSIPs (which had effect from 1 October 2025):
- Paragraph 3.2(e) of PD 54D now makes clear that claims which "concern a nationally significant infrastructure project challenge" (defined as being a claim under section 13 or 118 of the Planning Act 2008) are "Significant Planning Court claims" and thus subject to the target timescales in paragraph 3.4 (including that applications for permission should be determined within three weeks of the filing of an Acknowledgment of Service). Whilst NSIP challenges were almost invariably categorised as "significant" before this change, this provides welcome certainty that they always will be.
- Paragraph 3.7 of PD 54D states that the Planning Court will consider disputed questions of permission in NSIP challenges "at an oral permission hearing only", thereby abolishing the previous stage of a permission decision being made on the basis of the papers submitted by the parties. We have previously discussed this change.
Stonestreet Green Solar challenge
On 23 October 2025, the SSESNZ granted development consent for the Stonestreet Green Solar project, a solar and battery storage project with an agreed grid connection that will allow the export and import of up to 99.9 megawatts of electricity to the grid.
A claim for judicial review has been lodged by Aldington and Bonnington Parish Council on three grounds relating to conclusions on heritage harm, adequacy of reasons for those conclusions and consistency of decision-making with a separate Town and Country Planning Act 1990 appeal decision.
Following the Gatwick Airport challenges noted above, this is another of the very first NSIP challenges under the amended procedural rules. It will be interesting to see how quickly the Court lists an oral permission hearing and renders a permission decision in the new year, to see whether the changes have the effect desired by Government of a quicker resolution of legal challenges to NSIP decisions. Going forward, it will also be interesting to see whether the guaranteed need to fund the legal costs of attending an oral permission hearing will dissuade pure protest claims from being brought by objectors against NSIP decisions.
To view the full article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
