A mixed outcome for landowners in government’s electricity network reforms

In the summer of 2025, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) consulted on a range of possible changes to the rights and powers of electricity network operators (that is, the companies which run our power grid). The CLA responded to this consultation on the 14 August.

The government has now released its own response. As well as carrying through initial proposals, it includes several positive changes for CLA members in response to concern about the proposals initially made in the consultation.

There are three main proposals which appear to be good for members.

Firstly, there are changes to compensation for some powers of entry which would benefit the landowner. The current wording of compensation for activities such as altering and upgrading equipment currently makes provision for “damage” caused “in entering the premises” or “taking action on the premises”. This is to extend to “loss or damage incurred as a result of the works”. This, says the UK Government, would specifically include the landowner’s time, movement of stock and loss of “agricultural subsidies”.

Likewise, compensation for entry for tree works is currently limited to “a requirement to make good any damage to land”. This is to be replaced by broader compensation for all loss and damage. This is directly in line with a request in the CLA’s consultation response.

Secondly, the government proposes “guidance” laying out good practice from both sides in negotiating and managing these powers. This will encourage negotiation by default rather than use of statutory powers. The CLA has long championed enforceable guidance of this type for all compulsory purchase and access powers connected to it. This proposal is more limited and may not be enforceable, but it is still a clear step in the right direction.

Thirdly, the government proposes greater “access to justice” via mandatory alternative dispute resolution. This is also something we requested repeatedly in our consultation response. It seems much detail is to be worked out as to how this will be implemented. However we are very supportive of the principle, which should help fairer settlements to be reached at lower cost to all parties including ultimately the electricity billpayer.

It is also positive to see the government proceed with its proposal to make the maintenance of trees the responsibility of the network operator. While this may mean more access by the operator, it also reduces liabilities for the landowner so is, in our view, a good change on balance.

Some of the proposals carried forward may harm those whose land is affected by them.

Firstly, various access powers currently limited to “distribution” companies will be extended to “transmission” operators. What this means in practice is that powers to access land to maintain and upgrade wooden poles and smaller steel pylons will be available for companies looking after larger and higher voltage lines. These “transmission” operators who manage higher voltage lines will need to give a longer notice period, typically 30 days, to carry out their proposals. This means landowners will effectively be required to grant access for maintaining this infrastructure rather than negotiating access agreements on commercial terms as is currently the case.

Relatedly, access powers concerning existing electricity infrastructure can currently only be used on the property hosting the electricity infrastructure. The government proposes a power to allow access over third party land where this is “necessary” for maintenance and upgrades. Again, this means the current system of negotiated licences at or above market value will end.

We are particularly concerned about the use of the word “necessary” in the power over third party land. As stated in our consultation response, the CLA fears electricity companies may interpret the word “necessary” very broadly. Access routes that are only slightly more convenient to the operator but could be very disruptive to the land they cross may be argued to be “necessary”. We will continue to press for wording giving greater consideration to disruption of affected properties.

There are also two important technical changes to the process for requesting infrastructure to be removed. Where electricity infrastructure is on a site either without an agreement or in a position where it can be removed due to the agreement’s terms, the landowner may not simply request its removal. Instead there is a formal process which must be followed. Under this process, electricity companies can apply to the government to require the infrastructure to stay in place if certain criteria are met (which they will be in most cases).

The consultation proposes two changes to this process. It proposes that the period after which the notice from the landowner takes effect should be six months rather than three. It also proposes that the landowner should give a reason, picked from a prescribed list, as to why the infrastructure should be removed.

Both of these may cause difficulties. Increasing the notice period means that even where there is no reason why the infrastructure should stay in place, the landowner must wait an extra three more months for its removal. This may further frustrate development ambitions and prolong the inconvenience caused by the infrastructure. The government’s justification for this is that it allows greater time for negotiation. We maintain that this makes little sense. It would have been easy to allow a timeframe which may be extended indefinitely where the parties agree to do so.

Requiring a stated reason to be declared early in negotiations is not a problem in itself. However, we worry that this will be used as a backdoor means to limit the grounds for requesting a removal. We have been assured that this will not happen, but narrative from the energy industry suggests it may be the explicit intent of the policy. The notion that one should ever require a reason to be legally allowed to take action against a trespass (which is ultimately the status of electricity apparatus present outside an agreement) is most concerning. For this reason, the CLA will continue to seek clarification as to how this policy will work and what will happen if someone wants to remove a pylon for a reason not on the government’s list.

The government is also seeking to increase the threshold above which new lines become Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. This is important for professionals as it alters the process to which they must respond. Its impact on their clients will be that projects proceed relatively more quickly in some cases.

There are also some proposals of limited impact on CLA members. These include expanded permitted development rights connected with substations and reduced consenting requirements for small-scale, low voltage cables.

It is worth reminding ourselves that consultation responses represent only a direction of travel for a government at a particular moment in time. Recent elections in the Senedd, Holyrood and councils in England may change the political landscape. There are also, clearly, many details still to be discussed and set out in legislation.

Overall, despite some concerning elements, this consultation response suggests a much more nuanced direction of travel than we saw during, for example, the progress of the Planning and Infrastructure Act.

It is good to see some of our suggestions appear to have been taken on board. DESNZ seems, in this response, to have taken genuine account of a variety of concerns and shaped its policy accordingly. We will continue to stand up for our members in policy development.