Consultation on streamlining infrastructure planning

Closes 27 Oct 2025

This service needs cookies enabled.

Pre-application: guidance for applicants preparing applications

1. Please provide views about the potential risks and benefits of government producing more prescriptive or less prescriptive guidance about pre-application consultation and engagement in absence of statutory requirements. In particular, we are interested in views on how guidance on engagement can support an efficient, faster, proportionate and effective NSIP process or whether doing so risks undermining the potential time and cost savings.

Please provide your views.

2. Should guidance note that collaboration outside of the NSIP process can help to address wider challenges that could otherwise impact development proposals? If so, what should it say?

Please provide your views. 

3. Would it be useful for applicants to consider these factors while preparing their applications and in particular in relation to any non-statutory engagement and consultation (at paragraph 19)? What changes or additions to these draft factors would you welcome?

Factors for applicants to consider in preparing applications

  • Prioritise front-loading, so applications are well-developed by the time they are submitted and provide the right information for the Planning Inspectorate to determine whether the application is suitable to proceed to examination, and are capable of being accepted and progressing through the regime within statutory timescales.
  • Proportionate, so that applicants can identify and understand issues that must be explored, addressed and decided during the NSIP process to enable the application for consent to be determined. If consultation and engagement is undertaken with communities, landowners, local authorities and statutory bodies, it should be done in a way that is proportionate to these aims, considering the nature and complexity of the proposal while ensuring infrastructure can be decided and, where consent is granted, developed in a timely manner. While informal, light-touch engagement may be sensible, multiple rounds of non-statutory consultation should be avoided.
  • Open and transparent, with applicants being clear about their proposals and the timescales they are working to, and considering how accessible and understandable their documents are. If they consult and engage, they should be clear on the matters on which they are seeking views and which people can influence, and how responses will be taken into account in progressing the proposal.
  • Timely, so that applications progress to reasonable timeframes and informal engagement and consultation is timed to benefit the applicant’s overall programme for their proposed development, giving proportionate levels of detail and sufficient time for consideration and response.

Please provide your views. 

4. Do you agree guidance should set out at a high level the benefits of non-statutory engagement and consultation? Are there any benefits not listed which we should include?

Please provide your views. 

5. Should guidance encourage collaboration between applicants, stakeholders and statutory bodies? If so, what should it say? We particularly welcome views on how collaboration and prevent delays and the role for the sector to work collaboratively with stakeholders and how government can support this.

Please provide your views.