Infrastructure Planning Reform 2026: What the New Regulations Mean for Major Commercial Projects

The Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which came into force on 8 January 2026, mark a notable development in England’s planning framework for large-scale commercial infrastructure. By expanding access to the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) regime, the Regulations signal a shift in how certain strategically important developments, particularly data centres, may be consented going forward. While the changes are evolutionary rather than revolutionary, they reflect a broader policy direction: recognising that some commercial developments now carry national economic and infrastructure significance, and may warrant a consenting route traditionally reserved for major public infrastructure.

What has changed?

The 2026 Regulations amend the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013 to bring certain business and commercial projects within scope of section 35 of the Planning Act 2008. In practice, this means that qualifying developments may be directed into the NSIP regime by the Secretary of State, where they are considered to be of national significance.

Data centres are the clearest example of this policy shift. Their growing importance to digital resilience, energy infrastructure and economic growth has prompted Government to recognise that, in some cases, local planning routes may not be the most appropriate mechanism for determining consent.

Access to the DCO regime

Where a section 35 direction is granted, a project proceeds via a Development Consent Order (DCO) rather than the Town and Country Planning Act system. This offers a single, centralised consenting process, with examination by the Planning Inspectorate and a final decision taken at ministerial level.

However, the NSIP route is not automatic. Developers must actively seek a section 35 direction, and the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the project meets the statutory test of national significance. Local planning therefore remains the default route for most schemes.

Opportunity, but not without complexity

For large and sensitive developments, the NSIP regime can offer meaningful advantages. A single consent, greater policy alignment and centralised decision-making may reduce fragmentation and local inconsistency for projects with wider strategic importance.

That said, the DCO process brings its own challenges. Examination is detailed and structured, consultation requirements are rigorous, and scrutiny from statutory bodies and third parties is intense. For developers, the question will not simply be whether the NSIP route is available, but whether it genuinely delivers greater certainty and efficiency for a particular scheme.

Legal risk remains central

Crucially, moving into the NSIP regime does not eliminate legal risk. Development Consent Orders remain susceptible to Judicial Review, particularly where procedural fairness, policy interpretation or consultation adequacy is challenged. Indeed, the profile of NSIP decisions can make them an attractive target for objectors.

Similarly, private law risks, including Rights of Light claims, continue to exist independently of the planning system. Even where a project has secured national-level consent, these issues can still threaten delivery, funding and programme if left unaddressed.

What happens next?

While the Regulations are now in force, their practical impact is likely to unfold gradually. Market appetite for section 35 directions will depend heavily on the forthcoming National Policy Statement, which is expected to provide further clarity on the criteria for national significance and the approach to DCO determination for data centres.

Until that policy framework is tested through live projects, many developers are likely to adopt a cautious, case-by-case approach. Time will tell whether this reform materially accelerates the delivery of complex commercial infrastructure or remains a targeted option for a limited number of schemes.

How Continuum Specialty supports delivery

At Continuum Specialty, we work with developers, funders and advisers navigating complex planning and legal environments. As planning routes evolve, our focus remains on providing certainty where risk cannot be eliminated but can be managed.

Through bespoke Judicial Review and Rights of Light insurance solutions, we help projects progress where consenting strategies are novel, politically sensitive or exposed to third-party challenge. Our role is to support confident decision-making, protect investment and enable momentum in an increasingly complex development landscape.

If you would like to discuss how these planning reforms intersect with your project risk strategy, our team would be pleased to assist.

More From Our Blog

Uncategorized

12 Jun 2026

Legal Challenges and Ireland’s Data Centre Growth: Delivery Risk in a Power-Constrained Market

Ireland has become one of Europe’s most important data centre markets. Its attractiveness is clear: a strong technology ecosystem, access to transatlantic connectivity, a favourable business environment and a concentration of major global technology companies.But Ireland’s data centre success is now facing a familiar infrastructure problem: demand is moving faster than the legal, planning and energy systems required to support it.Recent legal challenges to Ireland’s data centre policy underline the issue. Environmental groups have challenged the regulatory framework for connecting large energy users to the grid, arguing that rules allowing new data centres to rely on fossil-fuel generation conflict with climate obligations. The Irish High Court has granted leave for such a challenge to proceed.For developers, investors, lenders and their legal advisers, this is not simply an Irish data centre story. It is a case study in how government policy, climate law, grid capacity and judicial review risk can collide.

Michael Turland

Uncategorized

12 Jun 2026

When Community Opposition Becomes a Brake on London’s Progress

London has always evolved through tension.Every major change to the capital, from new housing and transport infrastructure to hospitality, cultural venues and mixed-use regeneration, sits at the intersection of competing interests. Residents want amenity, safety and a sense of place. Businesses need certainty, footfall and operating flexibility. Developers require planning confidence, investable timelines and a regulatory environment that supports delivery.That balance is not easy. Nor should it be. Local engagement is a vital part of the planning and licensing system. Communities must have a voice where development affects noise, light, heritage, public realm, safety and quality of life.But recent debate around Soho highlights a more difficult question for London: what happens when local opposition moves from scrutiny to obstruction?

Michael Turland

Rights of Light

27 May 2026

Tall Buildings in Manchester: Growth, Policy and Development Risk

Manchester’s skyline has changed significantly over the past decade. What was once a city defined largely by mid-rise commercial, civic and industrial buildings is now increasingly shaped by residential towers, mixed-use developments and high-density regeneration schemes. Recent coverage of Manchester’s tall building boom reflects a wider point: the city’s vertical growth is no longer incidental. It is now central to Manchester’s development story. Recent market reporting suggests Manchester has one of the largest tall building pipelines outside London. Barbour ABI’s High Rise Construction Market Report has been cited as identifying more than 200 towers over 50 metres, including 26 buildings over 100 metres and 10 over 150 metres. In 2017, Manchester reportedly had only four buildings over 100 metres. For developers, funders and legal advisers, this raises an important question. How can growth be delivered at scale while managing the legal, planning and neighbourly risks that inevitably arise in a denser urban environment?

Continuum Specialty

Judicial Review

27 May 2026

New Lottery Company v Gambling Commission: High Court reinforces the high bar for procurement challenges

The High Court’s decision in New Lottery Company v Gambling Commission [2026] EWHC 891 (TCC) provides an important reminder of the evidential and legal burden facing claimants in complex procurement disputes. The case arose from the award of the fourth UK National Lottery Licence to Allwyn. The incumbent operator’s bid vehicle, New Lottery Company, challenged the procurement process, including the evaluation and scoring of bids, as well as subsequent modifications made to the licence after award. Damages of up to £1.3 billion were reportedly sought. The Court dismissed the claims in their entirety. For lawyers, public bodies, developers, investors and other stakeholders involved in regulated procurement processes, the judgment is significant. It reinforces the Court’s reluctance to interfere with complex procurement evaluations unless there is a clear legal basis to do so. It also highlights the commercial impact that procurement challenges can have, even where they ultimately fail.

Michael Turland

Judicial Review

27 May 2026

Spain’s Energy Transition: Progress, Pressure and System Risk

Spain has emerged as one of Europe’s leading renewable energy markets. Rapid deployment of solar and wind generation, combined with reduced exposure to imported gas, has positioned the country as a central case study in the European energy transition.For policymakers, investors and infrastructure participants, Spain has increasingly been viewed as evidence that decarbonisation and energy security can be pursued simultaneously. Lower wholesale electricity prices, significant renewable capacity growth and continued policy support have reinforced that narrative.However, the nationwide blackout on 28 April 2025 introduced a more complex discussion.While initial commentary sought to attribute the outage to the high penetration of renewable energy within the system, subsequent analysis has pointed elsewhere. The incident instead highlighted a broader issue facing multiple European markets: whether grid infrastructure, operational systems and regulatory frameworks are evolving quickly enough to support large-scale renewable deployment.For lawyers, lenders, insurers and developers, this distinction matters.The key legal and commercial risks in the energy transition are increasingly moving beyond the question of whether projects can be developed. The focus is shifting toward whether energy systems can operate reliably, flexibly and accountably at scale.

Continuum Specialty

Judicial Review

27 May 2026

Germany’s Renewable Energy Market in 2026: Growth, Litigation Risk and the Role of Insurance

Germany remains one of Europe’s most important renewable energy markets. With ambitious 2030 targets, continued growth in wind and solar, and increasing focus on battery energy storage systems, the direction of travel is clear.The German market is moving at scale.Renewable installed capacity increased by nearly 21 GW in 2025, reaching just under 210 GW in total. Renewables also accounted for around 55% of gross electricity consumption, against Germany’s target of 80% by 2030.For developers, lenders and legal advisers, this creates significant opportunity. However, it also brings a familiar challenge: the gap between policy ambition and project delivery.Permitting reform may support faster deployment, but litigation risk continues to affect renewable energy schemes. Legal challenges can delay construction, require project modifications and create additional, unbudgeted costs before any final judgment is reached.For lawyers advising on renewable energy projects, the question is no longer simply whether a permit can be obtained. It is whether the project can withstand the financial consequences of challenge, suspension and interruption.

Michael Turland