ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMES Do the government proposals to streamline consultation on energy and infrastructure schemes risk unforeseen consequences?

Hannah McGinn

Hannah is an Associate Partner at Carter Jonas. She is a chartered town planner based in Leeds, currently specialising in Development Consent Order projects and stakeholder management for a range of infrastructure and energy projects. She has over 17 years’ experience in planning consultancy and development management at a local planning authority, with responsibility for managing and securing consents for a large and varied caseload of complex planning applications. This includes producing technical work to support schemes as well as representing and advising private, public and third sector clients.

Hannah has concerns that “while the intention to streamline consultation is welcomed, we believe that the mechanism warrants careful scrutiny. Streamlining must not become a euphemism for sidelining.” The solution may be in improving consultation, rather than reducing it, assisted by AI tools. 

Under government proposals set out in April as part of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, ‘burdensome’ consultation requirements on nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), will be scrapped (according to MHCLG figures) to save £1bn and lead to schemes being completed ‘at least a year faster’. 

Carter Jonas’ Consents team welcomes the government’s aspiration to make the UK a ‘Clean Energy Powerhouse’, together with the majority of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will be fundamental in achieving this. 

But the proposed changes to consultation will require careful consideration, especially if the Bill is to succeed in delivering planning decisions at speed without damaging the finely balanced process of local involvement in planning decisions. 

Carter Jonas’ Energy team works for a wide range of clients in this sector, across a wide geography. This includes National Grid, Cadent, Scottish Power Energy Networks, National Highways, Green GEN Cymru, Severn Trent, and SWECO, working on a range of gas, transport and electricity infrastructure projects. So, on the surface, this is encouraging news for us and our clients. 

As we see it, the government’s aspiration to both achieve Net Zero and drive growth will inevitably require changes to the process. Currently, the process of securing consent for NSIPs can be slow and uncertain and clearly the government appreciates that this can constrain economic growth and undermine energy security. 

The Guide to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill states that it can fast-track 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. The Bill aims to do this by simplifying the initial stages of the consenting regime. 

Streamlining – pros and cons 

The views of the then Secretary of State Angela Rayner have been characteristically to the point: “Critical national infrastructure is key to Britain’s future and security – so we can’t afford to have projects held up by tiresome requirements and uncertainty, caused by a system that is not working for communities or developers and holding back our true potential.” 

But while the intention to streamline consultation is welcomed, we believe that the mechanism warrants careful scrutiny. Streamlining must not become a euphemism for sidelining. One of the foundations of our planning system is public participation. While consultations can be time-consuming, they are also the main channel through which communities can engage with the process and much of this can be positive. 

I would be concerned if ‘efficiency’ or ‘streamlining’ was used to gloss over a democratic deficit. Community insight frequently brings to the surface site-specific knowledge that can improve project outcomes—whether it's identifying flood risks, preserving biodiversity corridors, or understanding local heritage and culture. 

Furthermore, curtailing consultation risks fuelling public resistance and eroding trust. If channels of communication in the early stages of the process are reduced, this could come back to bite developers at a later stage. 

Striking the right balance 

It is interesting to consider whether it is possible to streamline consultation without sacrificing accountability. Furthermore, it’s hard to identify specific phases in the consultation process which are entirely unnecessary. A crucial part of the process is creating a statement of common ground with key stakeholders. You do need to put in time and effort at this stage as this helps agree on the methodology ahead of the examination. With stakeholders, it’s important to bring them in on the journey, from project design to inception. 

It’s been widely talked about that there won’t be a requirement to consult on a Preliminary Environmental Information Report, which will help to speed up the process as consultation takes 6-8 weeks and can only be done at certain times of the year (for example, avoiding school holidays). Seasonal survey windows and land access can further restrict timescales. 

Consultation is necessary in building a relationship with the community, which is important, as developers will be working alongside them over a long period of time. On the one hand, planning processes such as archaeological trail trenching can help provide the community with local knowledge which generates positive conversations. On the other, consultation is risk mitigation. In my experience, if you start by leaving people out, it gives them more cause to raise unknown issues and object at the Examination stage – it may speed things up initially but it then cause bumps further down the line. 

There is certainly room for improvement: educating stakeholders to better understand planning documents and issues, and simplifying documents – but implementing these changes would take more time, not less. There is also the question around whether there is enough resource within local planning authorities to deal with the volume of work coming forward. 

A proposed solution 

So the solution may be in improving consultation, rather than reducing it. For example, digital tools should be more widely adopted to make consultations more accessible and efficient. Virtual engagement platforms, online forums and data visualisation tools can bring plans to life and engage a broader cross-section of the public, including younger and digitally literate demographics who are often under-represented. 

Secondly, there is scope to professionalise the consultation process itself. Clearer guidance on what constitutes effective engagement, coupled with capacity-building for local authorities and statutory consultees, could ensure that consultations are more focused, constructive, and timely. 

Thirdly, the government should consider a tiered approach to consultation, proportional to the scale and impact of the project. Not every NSIP requires the same level of scrutiny, and a more graduated framework could preserve the principle of participation while avoiding unnecessary delay. 

Our work demonstrates the need for this nuanced approach. Consulting with communities and stakeholders will always be fundamental: it’s impossible to develop and shape our projects without local input. Although the Bill is yet to be enacted, I hope that ultimately the changes will ensure that consultation and engagement can be more effective and more targeted. 

Financial incentives 

Another aspect of the Bill is a new funding mechanism which will enable communities to gain financially from new infrastructure sited in their vicinity. For example the government has said that households near to new or upgraded pylons will save up to £250 a year for 10 years. Additionally, new guidance will require that developers to fund projects including sports clubs, educational programmes and leisure facilities. The government estimates that new community funds would benefit communities by approximately £200,000 of funding per km of overhead electricity cables in their area, and £530,000 per substation. 

We agree with that approach. Community incentives already exist but this is currently quite disparate. There’s also a risk that it can be seen as buying planning consent. So the proposal to make this more transparent is certainly welcome. 

Streamlining throughout the process 

All processes, not least the planning process, require regular reviews, and the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is the ideal opportunity. Inevitably, streamlining will form part of this. It can also be achieved through other aspects of the planning process. For example, streamlining can enable a joined-up approach across local planning authority areas; also updating the National Policy Statements to reflect current needs and priorities, and reviewing thresholds – all of which we welcome. 

But streamlining must relate to delivery, rather than just intention. It can’t mean doing the same amount of work more quickly; it should mean doing less to achieve the same high-quality applications (or better). But if it achieves a lesser result, I think it should be questioned. 

As everyone will agree, the ambition to turn the UK into a Clean Energy Powerhouse is laudable and necessary, and reforming the NSIP regime is a key part of that puzzle. Our view is that we should strive for a planning system that is both faster and fairer; one that recognises that the voices of local people, far from being a drag on progress, are often the very source of its legitimacy and success. 

The government's challenge is not just to build infrastructure, but to build consensus. If it can do both, the vision of a Clean Energy Powerhouse might not just be rhetoric, but reality.