Not necessarily, but the delays should be shorter.

National Highways, the government body tasked with building new major roads, reckons that when a major road scheme is hit by a legal challenge it costs the taxpayer between £60m to £120m. The other big cost of these challenges is that the risk of losing a case embeds caution in the developer throughout the planning process. Because the legal challenge could see their planning permission overturned, developers have to spend more time and money trying to ensure that their approach can withstand any challenge.

What the bill changes is the number of opportunities someone gets to take a major infrastructure project to court. Under the status quo, you get three tries. First, you submit your case to the High Court in written form. The judge then looks at it and decides whether or not it’s worth accepting for judicial review. If the judge says no, you get a second chance at an oral hearing - again at the High Court. If the judge still says no, you get a third bite of the cherry at the Court of Appeal. Even unsuccessful legal challenges can add well over a year on to a planning timeframe.

The Government is scrapping the initial stage and limiting the opportunity to go to the Court of Appeal. These changes should cut the length of delays by a third to a half. Anti-building activists will still take projects to court, but the delays should be measured in months, not years.