Is the Government approving a 'record number' of major infrastructure projects?

Analysing a nonsense statistic

The government has proudly claimed credit for a “record-breaking” 21 Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) decisions in the first year of this parliament. This is factually correct, but let’s look a little deeper.

What is the NSIP process?

Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) are major developments, like power stations, airports, and motorways, that go through a dedicated planning regime set up in 2008. The system was designed to streamline approvals and give certainty on decisions for projects deemed essential to the UK’s economy and infrastructure.

How impressive is “Record-Breaking”?

The NSIP process only came into force in March 2010, too late for anything to be approved in the first year of the 2010-15 parliament so the record for “first-year” decisions only stretches back a handful of parliaments:

• 2015 Parliament: 18 decisions in the first year

• 2017 Parliament: 5 decisions

• 2019 Parliament: 15 decisions

• 2024 Parliament: 21 decisions

Yes, 21 is technically the highest. But it’s hardly a landmark achievement given the small sample size. And when you realise that one of those approvals (the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant relocation) has since collapsed due to the government refusing to fund its spiralling costs, the figure is already down to 20.

Twenty-one approvals in year one is also behind the pace needed for the 150 target across a five-year parliament. More importantly, this statistic is largely meaningless.

Why the “21 (or 20) Decisions” Don’t Mean Much

The NSIP process is lengthy. It begins with a pre-application stage where the applicant pulls together the case. This can take 2–3 years of preparation, sometimes longer. Developers must consult widely with local communities, engage with statutory bodies, and produce thousands of pages of technical documentation on issues ranging from environmental impact to flood risk. Some projects have been under discussion for decades before even reaching this stage.

This is followed by acceptance (one month, where the Planning Inspectorate decides whether to examine the application) and then pre-examination, where interested parties, from local residents to councils and campaign groups, can register their views (no time limit, but usually 2–3 months).

The project then moves to examination (6 months), where the Planning Inspectorate hears evidence, considers objections, and tests the applicant’s case in detail, before preparing a recommendation (3 months).

Only then does an application land on a minister’s desk for a decision, with a statutory three-month window to decide.

That means every single decision made by Labour ministers so far has been on applications lodged before the 2024 election. In other words, the 21 decisions figure tells us nothing about Labour’s performance, good or bad. It also doesn’t reflect the impact of Labour’s planning reforms, most of which are yet to come in. It is mostly a reflection, for better and worse, of the previous government’s policies.

The only meaningful metric we can assess by analysing these decisions is how Labour ministers are handling applications once they reach the “decision” stage.

The Record Since the Election

In total, ministers have issued 25 NSIP decisions since the election:

• 21 in the first year of the parliament (up to early July)

• 4 in the months since

Of these:

• 11 decisions were made within the statutory timeframe

• 3 decisions were already long overdue under the Conservatives and were quickly resolved by Labour

• 1 decision (Immingham Eastern Roll-on Roll-off Terminal) sat for 3 months with the Conservatives, then another 3 months under Labour

• 10 decisions breached the statutory three-month deadline under Labour (including the Cambridge project, which was later scrapped)

At present, two more decisions are overdue (Five Estuaries Wind Farm and H2 Teesside, both with Ed Miliband), while the Aquind Interconnector is also stuck due to Ministry of Defence security concerns.

Major and Minor Decisions Delayed

Some of the most significant infrastructure projects in the country have been held up, including:

• London Luton Airport expansion- applied February 2023, reached ministers’ desks May 2024, approved April 2025, nearly 9 months later than the statutory deadline. Luton Airport has been planning this since at least 2019 and launched consultation in February 2022.

• Gatwick Airport second runway modifications- applied July 2023, reached ministers’ desks November 2024, decided September 2025, 7 months late. Gatwick announced its first public consultation in August 2021 and has been planning to bring the second runway into regular use since 2018.

• Lower Thames Crossing- applied October 2022, reached ministers’ desks March 2024, decided March 2025, 9 months late. Highways England first submitted an application in October 2020, and plans for the Lower Thames Crossing date back to the 1980s.

These being big projects isn’t much of an excuse. The entire purpose of the NSIP regime is to give developers certainty on when decisions will be reached for nationally important projects. Ministers dragging their feet undermines that core principle.

Even smaller projects have been delayed. A Lincolnshire Energy-from-Waste plant was 248 days overdue when it was approved.

Must Try Harder (and to be fair, they probably are)

The government’s headline figure of 21 decisions doesn’t even make for a particularly good soundbite. Once you understand what it means, it’s clear it tells us next to nothing about whether ministers are delivering on infrastructure. What really matters is the timeliness and certainty of decisions. On that front, the record since the election is mixed.

The main area of progress has been on renewables. Under the previous government, renewable projects that might attract local opposition often spent months awaiting a decision from the DESNZ Secretary of State. Miliband approved several solar projects that were already well over deadline in his first week in office, and has generally responded more quickly.

However, in other areas (including non-renewable power applications), there isn’t yet enough evidence to say Labour ministers are doing better than their Conservative predecessors.

A lot of rhetoric out of MCHLG since Steve Reed’s appointment has been positive, and it is still very early days. But this particular stat is mostly nonsense. I’m fairly sure that Reed and officials in MHCLG are well aware of this. Because if Labour think this is good enough, we will never “build, baby, build” as Reed wants to.