When we debate planning reform in the UK, we naturally do so through a British lens. We compare one government with another, one set of proposals with the last and one planning regime with its predecessor. But sometimes the most valuable perspective comes from stepping outside the debate altogether.
As a communications consultancy working at the heart of nationally significant infrastructure projects, we're always looking for fresh ways to challenge our own thinking. That's one of the reasons we're delighted to welcome our first international intern, Daria, to Counter Context.
Originally from Finland and currently studying International Business at the University of Haaga-Helia, Daria brings a genuinely international outlook to questions that are often treated as uniquely British. Fluent in five languages and specialising in marketing, public relations and communications, she has spent the summer immersed in the UK's infrastructure and planning debate.
We asked Daria to reflect on the Government's proposed reforms to the NSIP regime from the perspective of someone looking in rather than looking around. The result is a thoughtful reminder that sometimes the best way to understand Britain's biggest challenges is to see them through someone else's eyes.
Over to Daria…
During my time at Counter Context, I was able to explore and get an understanding of what ‘good’ consultation in the UK looks like. Getting a first-hand experience and being able to immerse myself in the UK mentality and culture allowed me to explore both worlds. Having a drastically different approach in Finland, especially regarding major infrastructure, I found it intriguing to learn about the British approach.
Growing up in Finland, I would rarely hear about major planning disputes or read a news article related to so-called Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. As I’ve recently been exposed to in the UK, we have disputes and dissatisfied stakeholders, however these disputes tend to take place locally. Arriving in Sheffield and witnessing the scale of these disputes firsthand, I was baffled at how different everything is. In Britain, NSIPs are like a can of worms that you’d rather not open. Once opened, it tends to create multiple intensive and noisy discussions.
Whilst here, I did a lot of research related to the ongoing changes in planning regulations, including the removal of the statutory requirement to consult.
Reading multiple articles and analysing what others in the industry are saying, I noticed a similarity. Many mention that consultation isn’t disappearing completely, but downgrading to a ‘best practice’ expectation, and risk-averse applications will continue doing something close to the old-style consultation. ‘Risk’ tended to be a common theme across all commentary online: some clearly want to take more risk, and some don’t want to take any risk at all.
Digging deeper
After exploring the meaning behind any new questions, I’ve asked myself a simple question: Will projects actually move faster? I would say that these changes have a chance at streamlining the process. As is often the case with ‘reform’, there will be some delays and hiccups at the start. Hopefully, projects will be able to escape the problem of spending too much time arguing over things that have already been settled.
When I started my internship at Counter Context, I had no clue what an ‘NSIP’ is. This was a completely new term for me. In Finland, we don’t have a term like NSIP, neither do we have one main route for projects to go down. Instead, big projects – covering all sorts of developments such as airports and large-scale renewables schemes – must go through several separate steps, each assessed by a different authority.
Unlike Britain – where large applications tend to be decided on a national level – in Finland we keep it split up, with each application process being targeted for the specific area. From my perspective, there’s clear benefit in giving more responsibility to local decision-makers to properly assess their applications.
Another key difference is how infrastructure disputes tend to get settled. From what I have noticed in Britain, these disputes gain more attention, and sometimes even have celebrities involved in them, which in turn tends to create more noise. These disputes go national, involving the Parliament, receiving media coverage, and finally ending up in court. Whilst Finland mostly keeps them at a town hall level.
I think Britain does overthink the process, which is easy to say as an outsider, rather than an active participant. The ongoing reforms look sensible and reasonably well-sequenced. What stands out to me as an outsider isn’t the policy, but how much argument and attention surrounds it. In my opinion, every dispute in Britain has a risk of turning into a debate about the whole planning system, not just the project at hand. This is not the purpose of why or how projects are needed in the first place.
To conclude
I came to Counter Context to learn how a specialist consultancy communicates around infrastructure but I’m leaving with an important lesson. The underlaying argument isn’t uniquely British. It’s just louder and being fought on a bigger stage here.
By Daria Zheludkova, Intern at Counter Context during Summer 2026.