Utilities & Infrastructure

(Applicable to the EU)

Summary

The EU Data Centre Energy Efficiency Package, alongside other initiatives, aims to achieve carbon neutrality for data centres by 2030 and is expected to be released at some point in quarter 1 2026.

Initially, EU data centres will receive a standardized label detailing key metrics such as energy consumption, water usage, and reliance on renewable energy sources. However, over time, it is likely compliance will become more stringent, requiring adherence to defined criteria on energy efficiency, water conservation, heat reuse, renewable energy quotas, and participation in a green rating scheme.

Comment

To prepare for the EU Data Centre Energy Efficiency Package and related regulations, infrastructure providers serving data centres in the EU should proactively audit environmental performance, implement energy-saving upgrades, and establish processes for sustainability certification.

In focus: Data centres – an energy-hungry challenge – Energy

(Applicable to the EU and the UK)

Summary

The EU Commission has said it continues to assess UK data protection standards as being “essentially equivalent” to those in force in the EU. It has proposed to renew its UK adequacy decisions for a period of six years enabling the continuing free flow of personal data between the EEA and the UK.

Comment

News that the EU Commission proposes to renew the adequacy decision is positive for any UK businesses transferring personal data to/from the EU. The UKs ongoing adequacy status avoids the need for otherwise costly compliance or transfer mechanism requirements.

The adequacy decisions will now need to approved by various other EU institutions.

(Applicable to the EU)

Summary

The new Regulation introduces additional rules to speed up the cross-border enforcement of the GDPR and clarify the relevant procedures and rights.

Among other things, the new regulation will:

• Set clear deadlines: Once a lead authority is designated, investigations must conclude within 15 months, extendable by 12 months for complex cases.
• Simplifies co-operation: A streamlined procedure applies when the case scope is clear, no objections arise, and similar cases exist. The deadline is 12 months, with possible extensions due to national procedures.
• Strengthens complainants’ rights: Complainants can express their views before decisions are made and gain better access to case information, with member states free to offer broader access.

The Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 12 December 2025.

The regulation will enter into force on 1 January 2026 but the rules will apply from 2 April 2027.

Comment

Utility and Infrastructure operators / providers should review their internal procedures now to ensure they are prepared for the new enforcement landscape.

The greater predictability and efficiency with which GDPR will be enforced cross-border represents a significant step for multinationals operating across several EU member states.

(Applicable globally)

In April 2025 the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) closed its public consultation on its “Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) professional standard”. Following this consultation, the RICS published a global standard on responsible use of AI in surveying which is set to take effect on 9 March 2026.

This initiative aims to provide clear guidance for RICS members and regulated firms on integrating AI into surveying practices, and to promote accountability across all RICS-regulated sectors.

The key provisions of the standard include:

• Governance & Risk Management – requirement to implement clear policies around data use, AI system governance, and risk documentation.
• Professional Judgment & Oversight – requirement that Surveyors assess the reliability of AI outputs and remain accountable.
• Transparency & Client Communication – inform clients in writing of when and how AI will be used in service delivery.
• Ethical Development of AI.

Comment

This standard will help ethically integrate AI within the built environment. Organisations which are looking to use AI to support asset management, monitoring infrastructure and delivering projects should familiarise themselves and make use of this standard as a framework for using AI transparently and with the necessary accountability.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Summary

The UK government published the four key stages for bringing the provisions of the Data (Use and Access) Act (the “DUAA”) into effect.

Stage 4 is to be implemented in early 2026 with the Data (Use and Access) Act being fully implemented by June 2026.

Stage 4 will involve the implementation of provisions that:

• restructure the ICO;
• introduce a new electronic system for registering births and deaths and, most importantly for utility and infrastructure providers; and
• most importantly for utility and infrastructure providers, will impact the National Underground Asset Register (NUAR).

Comment

Implementation of Stage 4 of the Data (Use and Access) Act will introduce a statutory obligation for owners of underground apparatus to upload data to the National Underground Asset Register (NUAR), replacing today’s fragmented system of individual information requests.

With approximately 4 million kilometres of underground pipes and cables in the UK and 60,000 accidental strikes each year, NUAR will provide accurate, standardised, and up-to-date information to those carrying out street works—significantly improving safety and operational efficiency.

The legislation also requires asset owners to contribute to NUAR’s operational costs, ensuring the service remains sustainable without taxpayer reliance. Beyond compliance, NUAR’s enhanced capabilities will enable broader applications of its data under strict security and governance principles, supporting innovation and future infrastructure initiatives.

Utilities and infrastructure providers should, therefore, be aware that they will likely be legally required to supply data and share the operational costs of running the NUAR. Compliance will involve integrating asset information into NUAR, updating data governance processes, and budgeting for ongoing service fees. Acting early will reduce operational risk, improve safety, and unlock opportunities for smarter planning and maintenance.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

Following the Government’s confirmation that it is to overhaul the rules that allow legal challenges to decisions on major infrastructure including reservoirs, nuclear plants, trainlines and windfarms, the measures have now been incorporated into the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.

The previous rules mean unarguable cases can be brought back to the courts three times, causing years of delay and additional costs to projects, while also clogging up the courts.

The new rules allow one attempt at legal challenge for cynical cases lodged purely to cause delay. Now, where a judge in an oral hearing at the High Court deems the case totally without merit, it will not be possible to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider. To ensure ongoing access to justice, a request to appeal second attempt will be allowed for other cases.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

At its annual strategy meeting in January 2025, the Civil Justice Council agreed to set up a working group to examine the use of AI by legal representatives for preparing court documents.

This working group published guidance on AI for judicial office holders on 31 October 2025 which sets out the key risks and issues associated with using AI and suggestions for minimising them.

The working group is also wording on producing a consultation paper (to be followed by a final report), which will seek to address whether “rules are needed to govern the use of AI by legal representatives for the preparation of court documents, including pleadings, witness statements, and expert reports”.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Hertfordshire County Council has formally called on national Government to raise the penalties on utility companies responsible for poorly managed or unauthorised roadworks.

Under current legislation, utility firms may be fined just £80 for breaching permit conditions and £300 for unauthorised works — levels the council says are ineffective against large companies.

Since April 2022, more than 10,000 fines have been issued under these rules. The council argues that these minimal sanctions are viewed as ‘a cost of doing business’ by some utilities.

In a letter to the Secretary of State for Transport, the council’s Executive Member for Highways is urging a review of the current regime.

Proposed reforms include higher fines, powers to charge for inspection, and authority to penalise companies for failing to maintain road and pavement assets.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

The Standard newspaper reported in December 2025 that its year-long investigation had uncovered “disturbing practices at courts across England and Wales”, claiming that magistrates were completing their work almost entirely in secret and handing our hundreds of warrants without looking at the applications.

The Chief Magistrate has now launched an investigation. This follows on from the widespread reporting in 2022 of warrants being granted to agents for energy firms, including for vulnerable customers. A new court system for the approval of warrants was drawn up and approved in April 2024 that aimed to create greater safeguards in the system.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

In November 2025 the High Court ruled that Britain’s decision to issue more than two dozen oil and gas exploration licences was lawful.

Oceana UK, a marine conservation organisation, brought the case over 28 licences granted in May 2024, arguing that there had not been a proper assessment of the risk to protected marine life.

Britain’s energy department opposed the case. However, it should be noted that the (successful) opposition was based on the licences only being for early exploration and not for extraction at this stage.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

Planning permission for a hyperscale data centre to be built on green belt land in Iver, Buckinghamshire was granted in July 2025.

On 21 August 2025 environmental charity Global Action Plan and civil society group Foxglove confirmed they had filed a formal legal action against the government’s decision to grant Greystoke the green light to proceed with the project because no environmental impact assessment for the build had taken place.

On 23 January 2026, the government conceded in the High Court that it had made a material error in granting planning permission for the data centre complex in Iver, without requiring a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), paving the way for the permission to be quashed.

Comment

The UK’s data centre sector is entering a critical phase as planning policy, environmental scrutiny and digital‑infrastructure priorities converge.

This high‑profile legal error over a hyperscale data centre approval has highlighted growing concerns around electricity demand, water use and climate impacts. With data centres now classed as Critical National Infrastructure (CNI) and recently brought within the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) regime, developers may seek Development Consent Order (DCO) routes to avoid inconsistent local decisions.

However, delays and uncertainty remain until a new National Policy Statement clarifies how need, environmental effects and community impacts will be balanced.

Overall, developers face rising regulatory scrutiny amid strong governmental pressure to accelerate delivery.

Please see our article here for further details.

(Applicable England and Wales)

Summary

This case concerned service of a notice of claim to acquire the right to management under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (the Act) by Tudor Studios RTM Company Limited (Tudor). The Act required Tudor to serve a notice of claim on each person who was a landlord under a lease of the whole or part of the premises.

Tudor did not serve a notice on A1 Properties (Sunderland) Limited (A1) who held 4 leases of the common parts. The reason Tudor did not do so was that A1 did not have any management responsibilities in relation to those leases as it had underlet all the areas to a management company who was responsible for the whole estate.

The management company served a counter-notice on Tudor objecting to it acquiring a right to manage on the basis it had not served the claim notice on A1.

The Supreme Court ultimately held that failure to serve a claim notice on one landlord did not automatically prevent the transfer of the right to manage to under the Act.

The Supreme Court decided that, as the Act didn’t set out the express consequences for non-compliance, the Court needed to consider what consequence of non-compliance fit the Act as a whole.

Comment

The Court held the failure to give notice of the claim to the landlord in this case made the transfer of the right to manage voidable but not automatically void from the outset, and noted that, as in this case, A1 had been joined to proceedings at an early stage, A1 had already had an opportunity to object to the acquisition of the right to manage.

The decision has wider importance in that it has set out the approach courts should use in deciding on the consequences of parties failing to comply with a statutory framework where Parliament hasn’t expressly set these out.

Issues around procedural compliance are quite common in property matters. Whilst this case does clarify the test to be applied in certain cases of non-compliance; it is a further reminder to Stakeholders of the need to comply with all statutory requirements when serving notices or taking other action under property legislation. The consequences of not getting this right could be expensive and time-consuming.

(Applicable England and Wales)

Whether a restructuring plan which satisfied all the jurisdictional requirements of Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 should nevertheless have been declined sanction by the court on the basis that the ‘public interest’ would be better served by the entry of Thames Water Utilities Limited into a special administration regime, notwithstanding that this view was not shared by the Secretary of State or OfWat.

The First Respondent’s operating subsidiary, Thames Water Utilities Limited (“TWUL”), is appointed as a water and sewerage undertaker by the Secretary of State and is the largest water and sewerage company in the UK. The First Respondent’s corporate group has been facing serious financial difficulties for some time. On 21 February 2025, the High Court sanctioned a restructuring plan (“the Plan”) for TWUL proposed by the First Respondent. In the High Court, the judge found that the Appellant had standing to appear at the sanction hearing as an intervener to assist the Court with public interest and customer interest objections to the Plan.

The Appellant and certain opposing creditors subsequently appealed the High Court’s decision to sanction the Plan. The Appellant objected to the Plan on the basis that it was not in the public interest because the Plan would load an unwarranted further debt burden onto TWUL. He argued that the customers of Thames Water and the wider public would be better served by TWUL going into a special administration regime (“SAR”), as the costs associated with a SAR would be lower than the costs of the Plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals (save in one respect) and refused to grant permission to appeal. The relevant parts of the Court of Appeal’s judgment are to be found between paragraphs 170 and 223. The Appellant now appeals directly to the UK Supreme Court. The opposing creditors do not seek permission to appeal.

(Applicable England and Wales)

The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal “misinterpreted” key water industry regulation when rejecting a landmark abuse of dominance mass lawsuit targeting six water utilities, a proposed class representative argued in an appellate court challenge.

A ruling of the Tribunal:

1. refusing permission to appeal the Tribunal’s judgment on certification in [2025] CAT 17;
2. refusing an application to stay the determination of costs;
3. that the Proposed Class Representative shall pay each Defendant 20% of its reasonably incurred joint expert costs and one third of its legal costs of solicitors and counsel;
4. that the Defendants shall pay certain of the Proposed Class Representative’s costs relating to the engagement of experts in proportions set out in the ruling;
5. that the Proposed Class Representative shall pay Ofwat’s costs; and
6. that the Proposed Class Representative shall make certain interim payments to the Defendants.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary      

Companies House published guidance for individuals on how to use and manage their personal codes for identity verification (IDV), which was introduced as part of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Individuals can complete the identity check either through the GOV.UK One Login service or by using an Authorised Corporate Service Provider (ACSP), such as an accountant or solicitor approved by Companies House.

After the verification process, the guidance confirms that the personal code is issued either by email, if IDV is completed through an ACSP, or made available in the individual’s Companies House account, if IDV is completed directly with Companies House, and the same code can be used for all their company roles. It should be kept safe and only shared with trusted representatives who are authorised to submit filings on their behalf.

The requirements became mandatory from 18 November 2025.

Comment

Overall, the introduction of the personal verification code is a significant step toward increasing transparency, trust, and accountability in how companies are managed in the United Kingdom.

As such, companies and individuals should prepare in advance by completing verification early, ensuring that their details on the Companies House register match their identification documents, and keeping the personal code secure for future use. The personal code does not expire and can be used whenever Companies House requires identity confirmation.

Please see Foot Anstey’s commentary here for further details Corporate governance key updates | July 2025 – October 2025 | Foot Anstey

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) published in September 2025 its annual review of corporate reporting for the 2024-2025 period. The aim of the report is to continue to demonstrate FRC’s commitment to upholding high standards of corporate reporting, for maintaining investor confidence and supporting UK companies’ access to the capital.

Comment

The key points to note are as follows:

(a) the overall quality of corporate reporting was maintained during the 2024/25 period, with a lower proportion of reviews resulting in substantive queries compared to previous years. Despite this progress, a clear quality gap remains between FTSE 350 companies and those outside this group, with most restatements continuing to arise among non-FTSE 350 entities;

(b) the most frequently identified issues include impairments, cash flow statement disclosures, and inconsistencies between financial statements and other sections of the annual report. These issues remain consistent with the findings from previous years. The FRC also highlighted ongoing deficiencies in the disclosure of significant accounting judgements and estimates, particularly concerning the explanation of key inputs and assumptions. The review noted that heightened global economic and political uncertainties, including trade tariffs and international conflicts, continue to add complexity to these judgements and assumptions; and

(c) the FRC emphasised that the most common challenges identified within the report could have been addressed through more robust pre-issuance reviews, underscoring the regulator’s expectation that companies implement thorough internal controls to identify and resolve reporting issues before publication. This remains a key expectation.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

On 13 November 2025, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) published its Annual Review of Corporate Governance Reporting 2025. This analyses reporting trends and practices among 100 UK-listed companies against the 2018 UK Corporate Governance Code (Code).

(Applicable to England & Wales)

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has released insights on reporting by large private companies on their application of the Wates Corporate Governance Principles for Large Private Companies (the Wates Principles).

The report outlines key reporting trends and includes helpful examples of disclosure from companies of different sizes and levels of complexity.

(Applicable to England)

Summary

The mandatory BNG regime for all TCPA (Town and Country Planning Act) developments came into force on 12 February 2024. Since this date, developers have had a statutory obligation to ensure a 10% improvement in biodiversity per development. On 14 March 2025, the government published its first annual report around the income taken from statutory BNG credits. This is the first time data has been published which gives an overall picture of the market for statutory BNG credits. Statutory BNG credits are the third rung of the biodiversity hierarchy, with developers having a duty to firstly consider mitigation on site, followed by purchasing off-site units from third parties such as habitat banks, and only if neither of the first two options are available can they purchase statutory credits.

The report showed that £247,416 had been received for credits in the year from 12 February 2024 – 11 February 2025.

In addition to the recent fiscal report, Dr Nick White of Natural England has confirmed that Natural England are currently working on a monitoring and evaluation framework – the first report of which is expected shortly (precise date not given). The report will look at how the BNG system has been working so far and whether it has been smoothing planning processes as intended.

Comment         

Amongst the developments we expect to see in BNG:

• Securing off-site BNG requires either a Section 106 Agreement or a Conservation Covenant to be agreed. Where a Section 106 is agreed with the LPA, a Conservation Covenant is agreed with a ‘responsible body’ of which there are, at the date of writing, 28 recognised institutions, several of them also being local authorities.
• BNG is currently only mandatory for developments subject to the TCPA, which means that NSIPs (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects) are exempt. This will change in May 2026, when the mandatory regime is due to extend to NSIPs. We can expect to see a surge in interest in BNG, with the possibility that demand may drive down the overall price of the off-site credits.

(Applicable to England and Wales)

Summary

The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (“the Act”) was enacted on 18 December 2025

As part of the Act, the government sought to target NSIP reform with an emphasis on streamlining the process and removing barriers to delivery. This is to help the government reach its target aim of at least 150 Development Consent Orders (DCO) during the current Parliament. To achieve this, the Act contains several provisions relating to NSIPs consented via the DCO route:

Updates to National Policy Statements (NPSs)

• NPSs provide policy guidance on how NSIP applications are prepared and determined. Under the new Act they will need to be updated every 5 years and there will be routes to make changes outside of the 5 yearly cycle where required.

Flexibility on Consenting Routes

• The Secretary of State has the power to direct projects out of the NSIP regime on a case-by-case basis where an alternative consenting route may be more suitable.

Streamlining Consultation

• Changes to enable more concise consultation reports;
• Changes to the acceptance criteria in the Planning Act 2008 to enable the Planning Inspectorate to require corrective action ahead of examination (rather than having to withdraw/reject an application);
• The requirement to consult category 3 persons (those who might have a relevant claim under the Compulsory Purchase Act) has been removed. Instead, they will be notified at acceptance stage;
• A duty for statutory consultees and Local Authorities to have regard to guidance;
• A measure to “put beyond doubt” that “This is to remove the disincentive to engage in the DCO process between acceptance and preliminary meetings for statutory consultees, Local Authorities and those affected by compulsory acquisition.

 Judicial Review

• The Act removes the paper permission stage for Judicial Reviews of NPSs and DCOs.
• The right to appeal has been removed for cases deemed totally without merit at the oral permission hearing at the High Court.

Comment

The DCO process as it previously stood was thought to be delaying large scale infrastructure development and consequently the reforms to NSIPs have generally been welcomed as a means to unlock development. The approach to dealing with these projects holistically, strategically and at a national level is a positive step towards ensuring key infrastructure decisions are not being stifled at the local level.

In terms of the NPSs which underpin NSIP consenting, it was long understood that the previous NPSs were out of date and in need of reform if the government is going to achieve its mission of making Britain a ‘Clean Energy Superpower’.

The government has published new 2025 NPSs for energy and infrastructure (EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5) which will have effect in relation to applications for development consent accepted for examination. All updated NPSs are now in force but for applications that have been accepted for examination before publication of the updated 2025 NPSs, the 2024 versions will underpin planning decisions.

Please see our Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 Section for further detail.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-25 received Royal Assent on 18 December 2025 (now known as the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (the Act)).

The Act has 5 overarching objectives aimed at improving the speed, the efficiency and the consistency of the planning process, plus removing barriers to development:

• Deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for critical infrastructure.
• Introduce a more strategic approach to nature recovery.
• Improve certainty and decision-making in the planning system.
• Unlock land and secure public value for large scale investment.
• Introduce effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning.

According to the government, new powers in the Act that come into force on 18 December 2025 will allow reservoirs to be built faster, enable a new scheme to cut energy bills for people living near pylons by up to £2,500 and support clean power projects being prioritised for grid connections.

Some of the key reforms include:

• Streamlining Consultation

Removes the statutory requirement for pre-application consultation.

• National Policy Statements (NSPs)

NPSs to be updated every 5 years.

• DCO opt out

Introducing the opportunity for the Secretary of State or applicant to make the case for a proposal that falls within the DCO regime to instead be determined by another route – i.e. by submitting a planning application in most cases.

• Spatial Development Strategies (SDSs)

Introducing a system of strategic planning (known as spatial development strategies) that will look across multiple local planning authorities for the most sustainable areas to build and ensure new infrastructure is also being planning for to support the delivery of new housing.

• Delegation of Planning Decisions (England only)

In an effort to improve national consistency, the Secretary of State is able to direct which planning decisions are made by planning committees and which can be made by planning officers, and in some cases the Secretary of State may limit the size of planning committees.

• Sub-delegation of Planning Fees (England only)

The Secretary of State has the power to sub-delegate the setting of planning fees to LPAs. The fees will be ringfenced to the costs of the LPA of determining the application and cannot be used for cross-subsidisation of other services. The Secretary of State will have the power to intervene where fees appear excessive or unjustified.

• Planning Committee Reforms (England only)

Modernising planning committees to focus on the most significant developments rather than smaller projects, speeding up local decisions. Committee members will also be required to undertake training before they can make planning decisions

• Bill Discount Scheme

The Secretary of State has powers to create a financial benefit scheme to provide discounts on electricity bills for people living within 500 metres of new electricity infrastructure.

The Act also makes changes to Compulsory Purchase Powers:

• Statutory notices are to be delivered electronically
• Enables more delegation of decisions
• Simplification of information required in publicity
• Quicker vesting of land/properties
• Changes to loss payment regimes
• Removal of value attributed to the prospect of planning permissions

Finally, the Act takes a strategic approach to nature recovery by:

1. Establishing the Nature Restoration Fund which is a levy on developers allowing payments to be made, pooled and used for environmental benefits; and
2. Introducing Environmental Delivery Plans (EDP) which is a plan covering a specific area outlining a package of conservation measures to address one or more impacts of development on a protected site or species

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published an open call for evidence on 18 December 2025 on reforming planning rules to accelerate deployment of digital infrastructure.

The DSIT and MHCLG has requested responses on whether planning rules should be changed and policy guidance updated, with the aim of building digital infrastructure like phone masts and broadband infrastructure faster and helping to improve coverage and connectivity across the country.

Comment

The focus is on specific problems in the planning system that slow down or add unnecessary costs to building infrastructure. The call for evidence closes on 26 February 2026, so this is one to watch.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA) remains only partially in force. As part of a series of working papers that seek to bring forward some of the outstanding provisions and speed up housing delivery, on 25 May 2025, the government published a working paper entitled Planning Reform Working Paper: Speeding Up Build Out.

One key proposal of this paper is to implement s113 which will permit local planning authorities to decline planning permissions where they have been made by a developer who is connected to a previous planning permission that has not yet been build out at a reasonable rate. The local planning authority will do this by serving a notice indicating it will not accept a new planning application. The working paper indicates that this ‘sanction’ is designed to target “developers who persistently fail to build out quickly and tackle the problem of unscrupulous speculators making repeated applications that they have no intention of ever building out.”

The paper also proposes implementation of:

• Section 111 (Commencement Notices) – Developers must submit commencement notices to the local planning authority, detailing the expected start date of the development as well the anticipated rate of delivery (this is a provision already found in a lot of Section 106 Agreements). Developers face fines of £1000 for non-compliance.
• Section 112 (Completion Notices) – Allows the local planning authority to serve a notice where it believes the development will not be completed by the date of expiry of the relevant planning permission or within a ‘reasonable time’. This mechanism already exists but LURA will update the current provisions to allow local planning authorities to serve the completion notice without requiring Secretary of State approval.
• Section 114 (Annual Progress Reports) – Developers will have to submit an annual progress report to the local planning authority, outlining the number of homes built that year and the projected future delivery schedule.

Duty to co-operate

The plan-making system provided by the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LURA 2023) does not include the duty to co-operate and on 27 November 2025, the Minister of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published a letter to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) setting out its intention to revoke the duty to co-operate for the plan-making system.

On 16 December 2025, PINS published its response, welcoming the intention to abolish the duty to co-operate. This means inspectors will be lawfully able to provide any necessary remedy to bring forward sound plans to adoption. PINS will be updating its procedure guide for local plan examinations along with other materials to ensure they are ready for the transition to examine plans in the absence of the duty.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

The Corry Report (an independent review of DEFRA’s regulatory landscape) was published on 2 April 2025 and set out 29 recommendations to improve economic growth and nature recovery.

Some of the key recommendations include:

– Publish new Strategic Policy Statements for all regulators, requiring renewed focus on ‘constrained discretion’ and ‘place-based dynamics’

– Establish a DEFRA Infrastructure Board to accelerate delivery of significant projects, which will include a rolling forward-looking pipeline of NSIPs.

– More frequent risk-based monitoring, with information more accessible to the public

– Tougher penalties for deliberate non-compliance and persistent offenders, notably in the waste sector, with regulators able to issue speedy fines for minor offences

– Reform Farming Rules for Water and provide a new approach to slurry application and management to address diffuse water pollution

– Review and reform of the permitting system and more use of District Licensing.

Comment

DEFRA has welcomed the findings and begun implementing a number of the recommendations through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. Considering the government’s drive towards economic growth, we expect to see some fundamental reform to DEFRA coming down the track this year.

(Applicable to England)

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill is currently progressing through the House of Lords. The bill is set to introduce some far-reaching reforms including:

– Introducing strategic mayor-led authorities across the entirety of England. These Strategic Authorities will have planning powers that span localities, in a return to strategic planning. The government hope this will speed up approval of significant infrastructure projects.

– All mayoral authorities (outside of London) will have mandatory Local Growth Plans (LGPs) which will set out their areas of focus for economic growth and investment projects.

– There will be new planning powers for the new elected mayors. They will be able to ‘call in’ strategic planning applications as is currently done by the GLA in London to try and streamline essential regeneration projects.

– Restructuring the two-tier council system to create combined unitary authorities across the country.

– Introduction of a Mayor’s Community Infrastructure Levy which will sit alongside existing CIL schedules.

The Bill also proposes a ban on upwards-only rent review as it argues that it favours landlords and puts tenants in an unfavourable position and there are new restrictions on underletting clauses in existing leases.

If a superior lease includes terms that would require an upwards-only rent review as a requirement in an underlease, this requirement would not be effective. Furthermore, if such provisions are contained in superior leases, it appears this will also affect the Landlord’s ability to have a say in respect of other requirements relating to rent review terms being included in the underlease (including terms such as the rent review mirroring the headlease).

The broadening of the scope of this ban will in effect prevent landlord’s from including upward-rent review in underleases before the ban is implemented.

The scope of tenancies captured by the ban has also been amended to catch tenancies to which Part 2 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 apply or would apply if the tenant was in occupation (for business purposes and where permitted by the tenancy).  This ensures subleases of whole premises are captured.

Comment

Landlord’s may seek to vary existing leases prior to this ban to ensure they retain control over rent review terms contained in underleases.

(Applicable to England)

Summary

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied and has seen major revisions since its first publication on 27 March 2012.

On 16 December 2025, the government published a consultation seeking views on a revised NPPF and other changes to the planning system. A draft NPPF has been published alongside this consultation.

The three principal objectives are to:

• ensuring an accessible and understandable national planning policy
• establish a comprehensive suite of national policies on general planning matters applicable across England
• move to a ‘rules-based’ policy

Comment

The consultation is also seeking views on data centres and onsite energy generation, standardised inputs in viability assessments and reforming site thresholds. The consultation closes on 10 March 2026.

Note that the consultation does not include revised policies that are set out in the National Planning Policy for Waste, which sits separately to the NPPF. The government intends to consult on revisions to these policies in early 2026.

(Applicable to England)

Summary

On 8 January 2026, the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 (SI 2026/13) came into force to add data centres to the description of business or commercial projects (or proposed projects) in the  Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/3221)for the purposes of section 35(2)(a)(ii) of the Planning Act 2008.

Comment

This amendment means that data centres will be capable of being directed into the nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) consenting regime.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

Part 11 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 seeks to promote transparency regarding who controls land in England and Wales by requiring disclosure of information relating to land which:

1. aids understanding contractual rights;
2. relates to development; and
3. is held for the purposes of an undertaking.

The government has been consulting on further regulations where it is proposed that agreements such as option agreements and conditional agreements and pre-emptions disclose key information such as details of the parties involved, the type of contractual control agreement, the date of the agreement and date of determination and any extension ability and these must be submitted to the Land Registry and published.

Comment

The regulations are proposed to take effect on 6 April 2026 and will have an effect on parties to such agreements who should be careful about what information they disclose, the extent of this disclosure and deadlines for disclosure.

Under the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, failure to comply and providing false or misleading information knowingly or recklessly will be a criminal offence.

(Applicable to Wales)

Summary

In a bid to strengthen the building control system in Wales, the Welsh Government has introduced various regulations which are similar to those already in force in England in some aspects.

Two key elements of these regulations are:

1. Setting out a new regime relating to building work on higher-risk buildings.
2. Introducing duty holder obligations that will apply to all building work under the regulations

The Welsh Government only requires a regulated building to have at one residential unit, whereas the equivalent regulations in England require the building to have at least two residential units.

A fundamental difference between both regimes is that the Welsh Government proposes a local authority serves as the building control approver for higher risk buildings work, whereas in England this function is performed by the Building Safety Regulator.

These regulations are set to come in force on 1 July 2026.

Comment

The strengthening of building control can lead to a decrease in appetite among building investors to some extent, as there are now more regulations to abide by. However, to a larger extent, this can increase investor appetite as building safety is higher, leading to greater confidence in the success of investments.

Additional properties in Wales may need advice on these changes, as higher risk buildings in this area require fewer residential units compared to England thereby leading to a rise in commercial property leases within such buildings.

(Applicable to England)

Summary

In spring of 2026, the Law Commission expects to publish a second consultation regarding the issue of modernising the renewal of business tenancies under the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act. At the moment, many tenants opt out of the security of tenure provisions of the Act.

However, modern events such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the rise of online retail services and the increased focus on the environmental sustainability of commercial properties show that the Act is not working well for landlord’s or tenants and is standing in the way of modern commercial practices.

They have published an interim statement setting out their findings of an initial consultation concluding that there should be no changes to the security of tenure model, however, the threshold of a tenancy’s duration for exclusion from the Act should be increased from 6 months (in their second consultation paper, they anticipate consulting on increasing this threshold duration of a tenancy to 2 years).  The second consultation paper (expected in Spring 2026) will focus on the technical detail of potential reform of the LTA 1954.

Comment

It seems that reaching the conclusion of not changing the security of tenure model reflects the reality that few tenants resist opting out of this as it provides clarity on when they can end or renew their leases.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Summary

The government launched a consultation in July 2025 in relation to proposals to reform poor payment practices in business-to-business relations. Noting that healthy cash flow benefits businesses and the wider economy, and that over 1.5 million businesses are affected by late payments costing the UK economy almost £11 billion a year, the government is seeking to tackle:

– late payments;

– long payment terms;

– disputed payments; and

– unfair practice around retention payments.

Comment

The consultation sought feedback on a number of potential measures to tackle the main issues identified, but notably for the construction industry, proposed amendments to Part 2 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the “Construction Act”) to either prohibit the use of retention or introduce requirements to protect retention funds deducted and withheld from insolvency and late/non payment.

The other proposed measures cover:

1. introducing audit committees and board-level scrutiny of payment practices at large companies;
2. introducing maximum payment terms (limiting payment terms between businesses to 60 days);
3. introducing a 30-day deadline for disputing invoices;
4. making statutory interest mandatory on late payments;
5. requiring additional reporting on statutory interest;
6. enforcing financial penalties for persistent late payers;
7. introducing additional powers for the Small Business Commissioner (designed to improve their ability to conduct investigations into poor business to business payment behaviour).

All of the proposed measures would impact on the construction supply chain, though it is possibly the proposed changes to retention that will cause the biggest shake-up, given that these are routinely used throughout the construction industry and their removal or stricter regulation will force parties to consider alternative means of security. Results due to be published in early 2026.

(Applicable to England, Wales and Northern Ireland)

Summary

In 2025 DESNZ sought feedback from organisations in the Energy & Infrastructure sector on its proposal to mandate the introduction of solar canopies on new outdoor car parks in both public and private ownership.

This call for evidence closed on 18 June 2025 and on 26 November 2025 DESNZ published their initial response.

According to the government:

• The vast majority of respondents supported the principle of simplifying the process of installing EV charge points.
• Responses show support for further permitted development right (PDRs) for EV charging and better training and guidance for both industry and local authority officers.

The response lays out the next steps the government will take forward including:

• launching a consultation on expanding PDRs for cross-pavement solutions (XPS) installations and associated charge points, and alterations to PDRs for equipment housing
• publishing improved guidance for EV installations near listed buildings and in conservation areas

launching a training and capability package for local planning authorities and developers

(Applicable England and Wales)

Summary

This case followed Surrey County Council’s decision to approve the expansion of an onshore oil extraction site in 2019. Finch applied for judicial review of the decision on the basis that the Council had not considered the environmental impact of burning the oil once extracted (the “Downstream Effects”) in addition to the greenhouse gasses emitted directly from the extraction site.

The question was whether it was lawful for the Council to ignore the Downstream Effects in its environmental impact assessment carried out under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (the “2017 Regulations”). In the judgment, Lord Leggatt determined that the burning of oil was a direct consequence of extraction and so causation could be established. As a result, the Downstream Effects of the project were relevant for the purpose of the 2017 Regulations and needed to be considered. Consequently, the Supreme Court found the Council’s decision was unlawful and must be made again.

Comment

Though a significant decision, this case does not mean that local authorities cannot approve oil extraction or other projects which may lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the judgment signifies that planning consents must take account of and consider the environmental impact of developments and ensure that Downstream Effects (or scope 3 emissions) are included as part of their assessments. The wider impact on individual local authority decisions will be seen in due course.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

In the recent case of High Tech Construction Ltd v WLP Trading and Marketing Ltd [2025] 3209 (TCC) the court considered the question of whether a freezing order to prevent disposal of assets of a party to an adjudication is appropriate.

Comment

If a party to whom another party owes money (creditor) thinks that the party who owes the money (debtor) is at risk of insolvency and might start dissipating assets so that it may not be in a position to satisfy a judgment order, then the creditor can apply to the court for a freezing order to stop the debtor getting rid of its assets until the judgment is received. This is a procedure creditors may need to consider if it suspects there is a risk of insolvency of the debtor during court proceedings to recover the debt. However, this is not common procedure in adjudication.

In this case, the parties had adjudicated for unpaid work and the creditor was successful in the adjudication but the debtor still did not pay. The creditor then sought a freezing order pending enforcement of the adjudication decision.

This case serves as a reminder that a party who is owed money should consider carefully whether it will be able to enforce a judgment/decision if it looks like the debtor is at risk of insolvency, and that this also applies to adjudication decisions.

(Applicable to England and Wales)

Summary

In Vision Construct Ltd v Gypcraft Drylining Contractors Ltd [2025] EWHC 2707 (TCC), the Technology and Construction Court considered whether a document originally issued and intended to be a payment notice can be retrospectively converted into a pay less notice.

Comment

In this case the sub-contractor issued an interim application for payment, to which the contractor responded with an email titled “payment notice” but the content of which stated that the sub-contractor was owed less than the application for payment. The sub-contractor then commenced a “smash and grab” adjudication for the remainder of the interim application sum, as the contractor had not issued a valid “pay less notice”.

The adjudicator found that the payment notice was invalid as a pay less notice so the sub-contractor was entitled to the full notified sum in the application for payment. The contractor then commenced Part 8 court proceedings asking the court to declare that the payment notice should be given retrospective effect as a pay less notice.

The court refused on the basis it would undermine both the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and the sub-contract itself if the payment notice could somehow retrospectively be converted into a pay less notice.

(Applicable to England and Wales)

Summary

In Northfield Property Solutions Ltd v Dykes & Anor [2025] EWHC 2926 (TCC) the court considered whether the claimant could be entitled to an extension of time for the issue of the claim form challenging an arbitration award beyond the 28-day statutory period.

Comment

Under the Arbitration Act 1996 there is a statutory period of 28 days in which to challenge an arbitration award on the grounds of serious irregularity. The claimant in this case made an application for extension of time for an additional 14 days.

The court considered

(i) the length of the delay,

(ii) whether the party in delay was acting reasonably in the circumstances, and

(iii) whether the other party or arbitrator caused or contributed to the delay.

In considering (i) above, the court noted that the length of delay must be looked at in the context of the original period, so in this case a delay of 14 days after the allowed period of 28 days was considered a considerable delay.

In considering (ii) and (iii) above, the court decided that there was no real reasonable explanation for the delay, and although the claimant had been corresponding with the arbitrator about the original award, there was no obligation on the arbitrator to respond within a particular period so it could not be demonstrated that they had contributed to the delay.

The claim for extension of time failed and the judgment serves as a reminder that courts will enforce the timeframes set out in the Arbitration Act.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Summary

Updates to the collective redundancy reporting requirements primarily relate to the HR1 form. HR1 forms are used by employers to notify the Secretary of State when they are planning 20 or more redundancies at one establishment within a 90-day period.

Following recent changes to the HR1 form, it will be mandatory from 1 December 2025 to submit it digitally. Paper forms will not be accepted from this date. Other notable changes include:

• Employers no longer needing to provide occupational group breakdowns in the HR1, as this section has been removed from the new digital version.
• The digital form introduces an additional redundancy reason option: “Change in supply chain/loss of supply chain contract,” giving employers a broader set of categories to describe the rationale for redundancies.

Comment

Ensure you have tested the digital submission process and that internal guidance is updated.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

The Government has confirmed new National Living Wage (NLW) and National Minimum Wage (NMW) rates that will take effect from April 2026. The NLW, applicable to workers aged 21 and over, will increase from £12.21 to £12.71 per hour.

Other notable raises include:

• An increase of 50p (4.1%) to the NLW for those aged 21 and above, bringing the rate to £12.71 per hour.
• An increase of 85p (8.5%) for workers aged 18–20, raising the hourly rate from £10.00 to £10.85.
• An increase of 45p (6%) for 16–17-year-olds and apprentices, moving the rate from £7.55 to £8.00 per hour.

Comment

These adjustments are part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to ensure fair pay and align wage levels more closely across age groups.

We recommend auditing current pay rates and updating payroll systems ahead of April to avoid any risk of underpayment.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Summary

The Government has announced proposed new statutory rates for sick pay and family leave pay, effective from 6 April 2026.

For family leave, the weekly rate will increase from £187.18 to £194.32.

For sick pay, the weekly rate will increase from £118.75 to £123.25. In addition, the Lower Earnings Limit is also set to increase from £125.00 or more per week, to £129.00 or more per week. The updated figures reflect a 3.8% rise in line with the consumer price index to September 2025.

Comment

It’s important for employers to review their current policies, assess the financial implications and ensure payroll systems are updated promptly. These updates will all take affect from the start of the 2026-2027 tax year, and will have a substantial impact on payroll costs, family leave budgets and HR systems.

The amendments coming into effect from October 2026 are set to include:

• Fire/Re-Hire: any dismissal of an employee for a refusal to accept changes to any employment terms relating to pay, working hours, pension, shift times, shift lengths, time off and any other changes to be defined in regulations, will be automatically unfair, save where the employer is essentially facing insolvency.
• TUPE: new regulations will be introduced for suppliers to follow a new code preventing a “two-tier workforce,” relating to public sector outsourced workers.
• Tipping: tightened and more transparent tipping law regulations. This will ensure that 100% of tips and service charge go to workers.
• Trade Unions: A new duty to be imposed on employers, ensuring that they inform workers of their right to join a trade union.
• Trade Unions: TUs to gain strengthened rights of access, ensuring that they can gain improved access to workplaces and speak with, recruit and organise members.
• Sexual harassment: new regulations which will mean employers must take “all reasonable steps” to prevent sexual harassment of their employees.
• Third-party harassment: Employers will be held responsible for preventing harassment of staff by customers, clients, or other third parties.
• Trade Unions: Trade union representatives set to receive stronger protection and support to carry out their duties both efficiently and effectively.
• ET Limits: Time limits for bringing certain employment claims are set to be extended, ensuring that workers have more opportunity to pursue cases. The current 3 month deadline for most current claims will increase to 6 months.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

In Rice v Wicked Vision Ltd and Barton Turns v Treadwell, the Court of Appeal confirmed that dismissal can amount to a detriment under s47B ERA 1996 where a colleague is involved, meaning employers can be vicariously liable for whistleblowing detriment even if the detriment complained of is dismissal. Both claimants were allowed to pursue detriment claims alongside automatic unfair dismissal claims. The Court acknowledged ongoing uncertainty in this area, which may require Supreme Court clarification or legislative reform.

Comments

Key Takeaways:

• Employers may face dual exposure: unfair dismissal and detriment claims based on the same dismissal.
• Senior staff could face personal liability if their actions contribute to detriment.

Processes should separate roles, include whistleblowing training, and ensure robust safeguards around decision-making.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that employers do not need to count past redundancies when deciding if the 20-dismissal threshold for collective consultation under Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act is met.

The EAT has confirmed that the question is whether the employer at some stage was “proposing” the threshold number of dismissals within the relevant time. Accordingly, separate redundancy exercises may not trigger collective consultation and tribunals will assess on the facts whether proposals were linked.

Comments

It’s important for employers to remain cautious when it comes to collective redundancies, because non-compliance risks will increase from April 2026 when protective awards double, not to mention after the further reform that is expected in 2027.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Summary

Effective from 1 September 2025, the “Failure to Prevent Fraud” offence holds large organisations criminally liable if an employee, agent, subsidiary, or other associated person commits fraud intended to benefit the organisation, and the organisation lacked reasonable fraud prevention procedures at the time.

Comment

The failure to prevent fraud offence significantly impacts large organisations, including those in the utilities and infrastructure sectors. This offence holds companies criminally liable if they fail to prevent fraud committed by employees, agents, or subsidiaries intended to benefit the organisation, regardless of whether they were aware of the fraudulent activity.

The utilities and infrastructure sector, which often involves large, complex supply chains, joint ventures, and public-private partnerships, will be inherently vulnerable to fraud risks. Infrastructure projects (especially those funded by public money) will come under greater scrutiny, and failure to comply could result in reputational damage, prosecution, and financial penalties.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Summary

In April 2025, The Environment Agency (EA) has launched a consultation which proposed changes to its enforcement and sanctions policy in order to extend its regulation to manufacturers of fossil-fuel based boilers and heat pumps identified under the Government’s Clean Heat Market Mechanism (CHMM) scheme.

The consultation sought views on its penalty-setting approach for CHMM financial civil penalties; types of CHMM civil penalties; when and how the EA will apply discretion to CHMM penalties; how the EA calculates the penalty amount; and the procedure for imposing penalties.

The consultation closed at 23.59 on 15 July 2025 and the results are expected imminently.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

Ofgem’s role as regulator for the heat network sector formally begins on 27 January 2026 when an initial set of consumer protection standards take effect under the Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025.

From 27 January 2026, it will be unlawful to operate a heat network or supply heating, cooling, or hot water to consumers without authorisation from Ofgem. Deemed authorisation is in place for existing heat network operators and those who start carrying out regulated during the first year after the regulations come into full force and will be required to register with Ofgem within 1 year (by 26 January 2027).

Comment

The Ofgem heat network regulations will transition a largely unregulated area to fully regulated, placing obligations on utilities and infrastructure providers around authorisation, consumer protection, reporting, and operational standards.

Heat networks, from 27 January 2026, are due to be fully regulated as utilities. Operators of heat networks should be aware of their registration requirements and prepare for enforcement of the rules governing the sector. These include authorisation requirements, technical and performance standards, consumer protections standards and complaint-handling procedures.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

The Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce was established to overcome the regulatory obstacles slowing down the rollout of nuclear projects in the UK.

On 11 July 2025, they released an interim report outlining the key objectives of the taskforce and timeline for reform and in November 2025, the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce published its

In this report the taskforce finds that the UK nuclear sector faces critical challenges due to fragmented regulation, excessive risk aversion, and outdated legislation, which have led to delays and rising costs. The review identifies five root causes: lack of unified oversight, disproportionate regulatory decisions, flawed laws, unclear government priorities, and weak industry incentives.

The report sets out specific recommendations for reform commencing in March 2026 to support the aim of restoring efficiency, reducing costs and positioning the UK as a global leader in nuclear energy, supporting Net Zero and national security goals. These include:

• Unified Regulation: merging overlapping regulatory bodies and establishing a single Commission on Nuclear Regulation
• Proportionate Risk Management: consistent risk benchmarks and modernising environmental and safety processes.
• Streamlined Planning & Legislation: updating outdated rules and simplifying approval procedures
• Culture & Capability Transformation: fostering timely, cost-effective delivery and embracing digital tools.

The government has accepted the taskforce’s recommendations and committed to present a full implementation plan in early 2026 and completing implementation of the recommendations within two years, subject to legislative timelines.

Comment

The taskforce will impact key stakeholders in the Utilities and Infrastructure sector as they plan to streamline the regulation implemented by multiple regulators, align with international standards, and improve the practicability of safety regulation.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

Following the fire at North Hyde electricity substation in March 2025 which prompted the National Energy System Operator (NESO) investigation into the UK energy system’s overall resilience, the government has announced that it will publish an energy resilience strategy in 2026 to set out how the sector should respond to cyber security threats, climate change and geopolitical tensions.

Comment

The Energy Resilience Strategy is expected to include enhanced standards and requirements for regular testing and maintenance as well as wider plans to upgrade ageing energy networks by focusing on:

– resilience of infrastructure

– incident response and service restoration

– critical infrastructure continuity planning

The government’s strategy will provide an interesting insight for utilities and energy infrastructure stakeholders into the direction of travel on policy and regulation in the sector.

(Applicable UK-wide)

Comment

NESO published its Regional Energy Strategic Planning Methodology in November 2025 as part of its “Beyond 2030” plan to identify onshore and offshore electricity transmission network reinforcements to achieve net-zero goals. NESO is currently consulting on its regional energy strategic planning methodology until 16 January 2026. The final methodology will be published in summer 2026 and will be used to produce the first 11 regional energy strategic plans (RESPs).

Summary

NESO’s strategic planning will focus on electricity and gas distribution networks, with an aim to move towards a joined-up approach and ensure that local areas receive the relevant infrastructure to progress towards Net Zero targets. The proposed methodology which will form the basis of regional strategic planning and so will be of importance to infrastructure stakeholders.

(Applicable to England and Wales)

Summary

A recent ruling in the Court of Appeal has upheld Morrisons’ £3.5 million fine for health and safety related breaches. The court held that an employer should be taking reasonably practical steps to mitigate against health and safety risks arising out of an employee’s specific circumstances, even where no such risk would have arisen had it not been for such circumstances.

Comment

For further discussion on this case, please see our article here.

(Applicable to England and Wales)

Summary

The mandatory requirement for developers to provide biodiversity net gain (BNG) came into force on 12 February 2024. As a reminder, this requires developers to demonstrate at least 10% BNG gain for new planning applications for development under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 that results in loss or degradation of habitat.

These BNG requirements will begin to apply to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in England from May 2026.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

Following the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (the Act) receiving Royal Assent, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) published a policy paper on the 18 December 2025 on how the government plans to implement the Nature Restoration Fund (NRF) introduced under the act.

The NRF is an alternative approach for developers to meet their environmental responsibilities relating to protected sites and species. Under the NRF, Natural England will prepare and submit draft environmental delivery plans (EDPs) to the Secretary of State for approval. EDPs will set out strategic actions to be taken to address the impact that development has on a protected site or species in a specific area. Where an EDP is in place, the developer would no longer be required to undertake its own environmental assessments or deliver project-specific interventions for issues addressed by the EDP. Instead, developers will be able to discharge their responsibilities by paying a nature restoration levy, which will fund Natural England to implement the EDP.

The NRF implementation plan explains how EDPs will work in practice, covering:

• How Natural England will develop EDPs (what an EDP will contain, the consultation process and the Secretary of State’s considerations).
• How developers will be able to use EDPs (including that most EDPs will be voluntary, reliance on EDPs instead of habitats assessment or species licences, the interaction with planning conditions and paying the levy).
• Monitoring and reporting obligations.

An implementation timeline indicates that the government will lay secondary legislation for the levy and consult on the first nutrient pollution EDPs in spring to summer 2026.

Comment

The policy paper also sets out the government’s approach to developing and delivering the NRF. The government will make regulations on the levy and on prioritisation of the different ways of addressing a development’s impacts on a protected species or protected site.

The paper explains how the government will take a phased approach to developing EDPs. The first EDPs will cover nutrient pollution in specific listed catchment areas listed in the policy paper. Natural England’s existing Nutrient Mitigation Scheme will transition to the relevant EDP when it becomes available.

(Applicable to England & Wales)

Summary

The Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 received Royal Assent on 24 February 2025. The Act strengthens the power of the water industry regulators and delivers on the government’s commitment to put failing water companies under special measures.

Comment

Water companies must begin publishing their Pollution Incident Reduction Plans (PIRPs) by 1 April 2026 and from 23 June 2025, water companies are required to consider nature based solutions within their Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans (DWMPs).

This year, scrutiny and enforcement around these plans will likely increase.