Some developments are too big for the local planning system to decide on at all.
A new power station, a major rail scheme, a large reservoir – projects on this scale don’t go through the local authority’s planning committee. They bypass it entirely, decided instead by central government under a completely separate regime. That regime is Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs), and understanding why a scheme sits inside it changes where you’d even look to find out about it.
Here’s what makes a project an NSIP, and why that matters for anything nearby.
What is an NSIP?
The Planning Act 2008 created a distinct category of large-scale development in five sectors – energy, transport, water, waste water, and waste – that qualify as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects once they exceed defined statutory thresholds. An onshore generating station over 50 megawatts is a typical example of a threshold test; similar size- or capacity-based tests apply across the other sectors, covering things like electricity generating stations, rail freight interchanges, reservoirs, and hazardous waste facilities.
Since 2013, business and commercial projects that don’t automatically meet a sector threshold can also opt into the regime if the Secretary of State considers them nationally significant, so the category isn’t purely a function of the thresholds; there’s a discretionary route in as well.
Why does size change who decides?
Once a project meets the NSIP threshold, it no longer goes through the local planning authority for permission. Instead, the applicant applies to the Planning Inspectorate, which examines the proposal and makes a recommendation to the relevant Secretary of State, who takes the final decision. This has been the arrangement since April 2012, when the Planning Inspectorate took over the role from the former Infrastructure Planning Commission following the Localism Act 2011.
The logic is straightforward: projects of this scale often cross multiple local authority boundaries, involve national policy priorities that a single council isn’t well placed to weigh, and benefit from a single, consistent consenting process rather than a patchwork of separate local decisions.
What happens to the local authority’s role?
It doesn’t disappear, it changes shape. A host or neighbouring local authority becomes a statutory consultee rather than the decision-maker, and is required to produce a Local Impact Report during the examination stage, setting out the effects the project will have on its area. That report feeds into the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation, but the authority no longer has the power to grant or refuse permission itself.
How is an NSIP actually authorised?
Through a Development Consent Order (DCO), a single consent that can bundle together permissions that would otherwise need to be applied for separately, including elements of compulsory acquisition. The process from formal acceptance of an application to a decision typically takes over a year, and is front-loaded with substantial pre-application consultation requirements before the Planning Inspectorate will even accept a submission. The mechanics of the DCO process – and what it means for landowners along a scheme’s route – are worth a piece of their own, given how much they involve.
Why does this matter for a property search?
Because an NSIP bypasses the local planning authority, the usual channels a conveyancer relies on for planning history don’t necessarily surface it in the way they would a conventional planning application. A DCO application sits with the Planning Inspectorate’s national register, not the local authority’s planning portal, and a standard local search isn’t necessarily designed to highlight a nationally significant scheme progressing through a separate, centrally administered process.
For any property near a proposed energy, transport, water, or waste scheme of real scale, that’s a reason to check the national register specifically rather than assuming a clean local search means nothing of consequence is coming. It’s also the route by which some of the most substantial compulsory acquisition and blight issues arise – an NSIP’s DCO can carry powers that touch a much wider area than the footprint of the scheme itself.
An NSIP isn’t defined by controversy or local objection, it’s defined by scale, sector, and a statutory threshold that moves the decision out of local hands entirely.
Knowing a project qualifies as an NSIP tells you immediately where to look for information about it, and it’s rarely the place a standard search would otherwise point you.
A new road opens nearby. Nothing is built on the property; no land is taken… and yet its value can still fall.
Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 exists for exactly that situation. It’s a compensation right most conveyancers rarely encounter, precisely because it doesn’t involve land being acquired at all – but for properties near new or altered infrastructure, it can matter a great deal.
Here’s what a Part 1 claim actually is, and why it’s a different animal from compulsory purchase.
What is a Part 1 claim?
Where the value of an interest in land is depreciated by physical factors caused by the use of public works, the person with that interest can claim compensation from the authority responsible for the works. This is known as a Part 1 claim, after the part of the 1973 Act that creates the right.
Crucially, no land needs to be taken from the claimant for a Part 1 claim to arise. It’s a form of injurious affection; value lost through the presence and operation of nearby infrastructure, not through anything physically removed from the property. The legislation provides a route to compensation in circumstances where an affected owner may otherwise have limited remedies for depreciation caused by the use of public works.
What counts as a “physical factor”?
The Act sets out a fixed, exhaustive list: noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, artificial lighting, and the discharge of any solid or liquid substance onto the land. Nothing outside that list qualifies, however genuinely a property’s value has been affected – general loss of view, disruption during construction, or a change in character to the area won’t support a claim on their own.
The factors also have to result from the use of the works, not their construction or their mere existence. A new road causing traffic noise can qualify; the fact of a road having been built at all doesn’t.
What counts as “public works”?
The Act covers three categories: any highway, any aerodrome, and any other works or land provided or used under statutory powers – which in practice extends to a wide range of infrastructure delivered by public bodies, from road schemes to certain utility and transport works. Although the statutory responsibility sits with the relevant authority, funding arrangements behind infrastructure schemes can be more complex.
When can a claim be made?
Timing is tightly defined by statute. The “relevant date” is the date a highway first opened to public traffic, or the date other public works were first used after completion. There is a statutory time limit for claims after the relevant date, after which the right may be lost.
There’s a practical logic to the delay before a claim can be brought at all: a claim reflects how a hypothetical buyer would value the property once the works are up and running and their effects can be properly assessed, not a prediction made before anyone knows how the finished scheme will behave. Compensation also isn’t available for factors caused by accidents involving vehicles or aircraft, and generally only one claim can be made per scheme, regardless of later changes in ownership.
How is this different from compulsory purchase compensation?
Compulsory purchase compensation is paid because land has been acquired. A Part 1 claim is paid because land value has fallen, even though nothing has been acquired at all – the two sit either side of a clear line. It’s entirely possible for one property on a scheme to be subject to a CPO, and its neighbour, unaffected by the CPO but sitting beside the finished road, to have a Part 1 claim instead.
Why does this matter for a transaction?
For most properties, this is background law that never becomes relevant. But for anything near a recently completed or altered road, aerodrome, or comparable public works scheme, it’s worth knowing whether a Part 1 claim has already been made and settled on the property – because that can affect whether a further claim is available, and it’s a piece of history a seller may not think to mention unprompted. A buyer relying on a mortgage valuation is unlikely to have this flagged for them; it’s the kind of thing that surfaces through local knowledge, targeted enquiries, or awareness of a nearby scheme’s timeline rather than a standard search return.
Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 is a narrow, specific right, one fixed list of physical factors, one class of public works, and a limited window to claim. But where it applies, it’s often the only compensation route available to an owner whose land hasn’t been touched but whose value has been affected regardless.
For any property near a completed or upcoming infrastructure scheme, it’s worth asking the question rather than assuming a clean search means nothing to consider.
Most CON29 questions ask about one thing.
Question 3.7, however, asks about six and the answer often can’t be found on a public register at all. Outstanding Notices is the CON29’s catch-all, and one of its least understood entries.
Here’s what it covers, why it exists, and why answering it sometimes means looking beyond the standard search return.
What is the Outstanding Notices question?
CON29 question 3.7 asks whether any statutory notices subsist in relation to the property – other than those revealed anywhere else on the form – relating to building works, environment, health and safety, housing, highways, public health, or flood and coastal erosion risk management.
That “other than those revealed anywhere else” is the important part. Every other question on the CON29 is defined by what it is: planning decisions, road schemes, conservation areas, contaminated land. Outstanding Notices is defined by what it isn’t. It exists to catch anything statutory and notice-shaped that the rest of the form wasn’t built to ask about.
Why does it span so many different areas?
Because it isn’t really one question – it’s six, folded into a single line. A notice under housing legislation has nothing to do with a notice under the Highways Act, which has nothing to do with one under public health law. The only thing they share is that they are all formal statutory notices affecting the property… and none of them fit anywhere else on the form.
That breadth is exactly why the question matters. A house can pass every other CON29 enquiry cleanly and still be subject to a housing or public health notice that has not been revealed elsewhere on the form.
Why can’t it always be answered from a public register?
Most CON29 questions are answered from a single, well-established local authority register. Outstanding Notices often isn’t, because the underlying notices sit with different departments entirely – building control, environmental health, highways, housing – each keeping its own records for its own statutory purpose, not for conveyancing.
Some councils are explicit that parts of question 3.7 are not held on a public register and may require separate enquiries with the relevant department, at an additional cost and with its own turnaround time. That’s a meaningful practical difference from a question like Conservation Areas, where the answer sits in one place and comes back with everything else.
How is this different from planning enforcement notices?
It’s easy to conflate Outstanding Notices with the CON29’s planning enforcement question, but they’re separate enquiries covering separate legal territory. The planning enforcement question deals specifically with action taken under the Town and Country Planning Act and related legislation – enforcement notices, stop notices, listed building enforcement notices, and similar instruments tied to planning control.
Outstanding Notices doesn’t touch planning enforcement at all. It’s about notices arising under entirely different statutory regimes – housing, public health, highways, building control – that are all created through different pieces of legislation but share the same basic mechanism. Two conveyancers could reasonably describe both as “a notice on the property” and be talking about completely different things.
What does this mean in practice?
Because the question is residual and multi-departmental, the honest, but frustratingly vague and bureaucratic answer to “how long will this take” and “what will it cost” is: it depends on what’s being asked and who holds it. Where the information isn’t on a public register, conveyancers should expect an additional request may be needed, with its own fee and timescale, separate from the standard search return.
For anyone advising a buyer, the practical takeaway is simpler: a notice under one of these six headings won’t necessarily show up anywhere else on a clean-looking search. Where a property’s age, location or recent history raises the possibility of a housing, highways or public health notice, conveyancers may wish to satisfy themselves that question 3.7 has been fully answered – not just assumed clear because nothing else flagged.
Outstanding Notices isn’t a gap in the CON29 – it’s the form’s safety net, catching six different types of statutory notice that don’t belong anywhere else. It’s also one of the entries most likely to need a separate, additional enquiry before it can be answered with confidence.
A clean result elsewhere doesn’t guarantee Outstanding Notices is clear. That’s exactly why question 3.7 exists.
On Friday 19th June 2026, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) announced a package of reforms, shaped in collaboration with industry, to transform the property transaction process in England and Wales.
The reforms follow a public consultation that ran from October to December 2025 and set out a phased roadmap to make transactions faster, more reliable and less likely to fall through.
Let’s spend five minutes tackling what the announcement is, and why it’s a vital step in the right direction.
What is changing for conveyancers?
The most notable change is a mandatory requirement for sellers to compile upfront sales packs before a property is listed. These packs must include:
- Standard property searches
- A property condition assessment
- Title information and seller ID verification
- Leasehold terms (where applicable)
- Flood risk, planning consents, and chain status.
This means key information that conveyancers currently wait weeks for should be available from the outset of a transaction.
When do these changes come into effect?
The reforms are being phased in across the remainder of this Parliament:
- Later this year: A Code of Practice for property agents and improved listing standards
- From 2027: Consultation on estate agent qualifications and expanded digital tools.
- By end of Parliament: Legislation requiring sales packs, binding contracts, and trusted digital property data systems.
There are no immediate mandatory requirements for conveyancers to act on right now.
Are upfront sales packs the same as Home Information Packs?
Conveyancers with longer memories will recognise the concept. Home Information Packs (HIPs) were introduced in England and Wales in 2007 and required sellers to compile key property information before listing, including searches and title documents. They were scrapped in 2010.
The Government’s current proposals share similar underlying principles – getting information to buyers and their legal representatives earlier – but the approach is different. Rather than a like-for-like revival of HIPs, the reforms are framed around a broader digital, data-led agenda, with mandatory sales packs forming one part of a wider programme of change.
Why do upfront property searches matter?
Searches sit at the centre of the reform agenda. Requiring them as part of upfront sales packs means conveyancers will have access to search data earlier in the transaction than has traditionally been the case, reducing the need to chase information mid-process and helping to identify potential issues before they cause delays.
To answer the burning question of “well what should we, as conveyancers, do now?”, the answer is nothing, for the time being, but be aware that the direction of travel is clear. Conveyancers who are already working with reliable, comprehensive search providers will be well placed to adapt as the reforms take effect.
Conveyancing transactions involving overseas clients carry a higher inherent risk of money laundering and come with a higher bar for due diligence.
Here is what enhanced checks involve, why international cases are more complex, and how to manage them effectively, en cinco minutos (we’re helping you with your international language there!)
Why are overseas conveyancing clients considered higher risk?
The UK property market has long attracted international buyers, and with them, an elevated risk of money laundering. Property is a well-established route for converting criminal proceeds into legitimate assets, and overseas clients introduce additional challenges that make due diligence harder to apply and easier to get wrong.
The SRA’s supervisory findings and the UK’s National Risk Assessment both identify international transactions as an area of increased concern. Residential conveyancing remains one of the highest-risk practice areas, and transactions involving overseas clients, particularly those linked to high-risk jurisdictions, overseas-sourced funds, or complex ownership structures, carry a heightened level of exposure.
The starting point for firms is recognising that a standard domestic customer due diligence approach may not be sufficient, and that enhanced due diligence will often be required.
When is enhanced due diligence required for international clients?
Enhanced due diligence is required under the Money Laundering Regulations whenever a higher risk of money laundering is identified. In the context of overseas clients, several factors commonly trigger this threshold.
A client who is not physically present presents a higher risk, as remote verification requires additional safeguards. Clients connected to high-risk third countries require increased scrutiny due to weaknesses in those jurisdictions’ AML frameworks.
Foreign politically exposed persons are treated as higher risk by default and require enhanced due diligence, including source of wealth checks and senior management approval. Where funds originate overseas, particularly where they pass through multiple jurisdictions or accounts, the complexity of verification increases and further scrutiny is required.
Any one of these factors may be sufficient to trigger enhanced due diligence. In practice, international transactions often involve more than one.
What does enhanced due diligence involve in practice?
Enhanced due diligence is not a single additional check, but a higher standard applied across the entire due diligence process.
For identity verification, firms need to consider whether their systems can genuinely support international checks. Not all digital identity providers can verify overseas documents, read foreign biometric chips, or access international data sources. Relying on systems designed for domestic use may create gaps in verification.
For source of funds, the evidential threshold is higher. Foreign bank statements may be more difficult to interpret or verify, and the regulatory environment of the originating country becomes relevant. Funds that move across multiple jurisdictions or accounts require careful tracing, and where the origin cannot be clearly linked to a legitimate source, this should be treated as a significant red flag.
For PEP and sanctions screening, checks must extend beyond UK databases. PEP status and sanctions exposure can vary by jurisdiction, and relying solely on domestic screening risks missing relevant information.
For ongoing monitoring, the same principle of proportionality applies, but risk profiles may change more quickly in response to geopolitical or regulatory developments. This means that reassessment may need to happen more frequently.
What challenges do firms face with international AML checks?
Enhanced due diligence for overseas clients presents practical challenges that go beyond standard domestic processes.
Staff may not be familiar with risk indicators associated with specific jurisdictions, making it harder to identify when something is unusual. Document verification is more complex, as overseas documents may not support NFC chip reading, may be issued in different formats, or may require translation.
Establishing ultimate beneficial ownership can also be more difficult. Corporate structures involving offshore entities and multiple layers of ownership can obscure who ultimately controls a transaction. Language barriers can slow the process and create gaps in understanding that introduce additional risk.
Firms should assess whether their current processes, systems, and expertise are sufficient for the type of international work they are undertaking
What does good AML practice look like for overseas clients?
Firms that handle international clients effectively tend to adopt a structured and proactive approach. This includes clearly distinguishing between domestic and international matters at the outset, ensuring staff are trained on jurisdiction-specific risk indicators, and using verification and screening tools with genuine international capability.
They are also prepared to ask more detailed questions, request additional documentation, and escalate concerns to the MLRO at an earlier stage where the risk profile is unclear. A cautious and enquiring approach is often the most effective safeguard.
OneSearch AML supports international due diligence through access to global PEP and sanctions datasets, adverse media screening, and international identity verification tools designed for cross-border transactions.
Working with overseas clients requires a shift from standard due diligence to a more investigative and risk-sensitive approach. The presence of international elements, whether in the client, the funds, or the ownership structure, increases complexity and reduces the reliability of assumptions that might hold in domestic cases. Enhanced due diligence is therefore not just a regulatory requirement, but a practical necessity.
Firms that approach these transactions with the right tools, clear processes, and a willingness to probe further are better placed to manage risk effectively and demonstrate compliance if challenged.
Remote identity verification is now a routine part of conveyancing, but what it involves, and what makes it compliant, is not always clear.
Here is how the process works, what it covers, and what firms need to get right.
How has conveyancing moved to remote identity verification?
For much of conveyancing’s recent history, identity verification meant a face-to-face meeting, with documents examined in person, copies certified, and records updated manually. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated a shift that was already underway, and remote identity verification has since become standard practice in many firms.
When implemented correctly, remote verification is not a compromise on security. Modern technology, including biometric matching, NFC chip reading, and liveness detection, can produce a more reliable result than manual document review, while also creating a clear and auditable digital record. Where processes are poorly designed or inconsistently applied, however, the risk increases. Documents may be accepted without proper scrutiny, checks may be incomplete, and audit trails may be insufficient.
Understanding what remote verification involves is essential to applying it correctly.
What does a compliant remote identity verification process include?
A compliant remote identity verification process covers three core elements, all of which must be present to meet the requirements of the Money Laundering Regulations and, for firms seeking HMLR Safe Harbour protection, Practice Guide 81.
The first is document verification, which confirms that the identity document is genuine. For Safe Harbour purposes, this involves reading the NFC chip embedded in biometric passports, EU and EEA identity cards, and UK biometric residence permits. The chip contains cryptographically signed data from the issuing authority, and verifying this data provides a level of assurance that cannot be achieved through visual inspection alone.
The second is biometric matching, which confirms that the person presenting the document is the individual shown on it. This is typically achieved by comparing a live image captured via a smartphone against the image stored on the document’s chip. The comparison is carried out algorithmically and provides a more consistent result than a manual check.
The third is liveness detection, which confirms that the image being captured is genuinely live. It ensures that the individual is physically present and not attempting to use a photograph, mask, or recorded video to impersonate someone else. This is a critical safeguard against increasingly sophisticated spoofing attempts.
What identity documents can be used for remote verification?
Not all identity documents support full remote digital verification. For the process to function correctly, and particularly for NFC chip reading, the document must contain an embedded chip.
The documents that meet this requirement include biometric passports, EU and EEA identity cards with biometric capability, and UK biometric residence permits. These allow the system to carry out full cryptographic verification.
Other documents, such as driving licences or non-biometric passports, can support identity checks but cannot be verified using NFC technology. For firms aiming to meet the HMLR Safe Harbour standard, a chip-enabled document is required.
What does the remote ID process look like for clients?
From the client’s perspective, the process is typically straightforward. They receive a link or access a secure portal, scan their identity document using their smartphone, capture a short video or image, and complete any required prompts. The process usually takes only a few minutes.
Behind the scenes, however, multiple checks are carried out simultaneously. The system performs NFC verification, biometric comparison, and liveness detection, cross-checking the results and flagging any inconsistencies. The outcome should be a clear, auditable record of the checks completed, including the results and timestamps.
This audit trail is important. The SRA expects firms to be able to demonstrate that identity checks were carried out, when they were completed, and what the outcome was.
What risks do firms need to manage with remote verification?
Remote verification introduces specific risks where processes are not properly designed or applied. Common issues include accepting documents that do not support full digital verification without recognising the limitation, relying on systems that do not carry out all required elements, and treating a verification report as the end of the process without reviewing its content.
It is also important to understand the scope of remote verification. It confirms identity, meaning that the individual is who they claim to be. It does not replace other AML requirements, such as source of funds checks, PEP and sanctions screening, or ongoing monitoring. These obligations continue throughout the life of the matter.
Remote identity verification should be seen as one component of a wider AML framework rather than a standalone solution. When all three elements are applied correctly, document verification, biometric matching, and liveness detection, the process can provide a high level of assurance and a clear audit trail. However, its effectiveness depends on how it is implemented and reviewed in practice.
Firms that treat remote verification as a complete solution risk overlooking the broader obligations that sit alongside it, while those that embed it within a structured and consistent process are better placed to meet both regulatory expectations and client needs.