Print article
Author
Article:
This article was first published in AgriLore Autumn 2026. To explore the full edition and related insights, view the publication here.
The recent case of Barstow and Others v Green Generation Energy Networks Cymru Limited [2026] EWHC 1968 (Admin) considered the rights of landowners when acquiring authorities exercise statutory rights to enter and survey land in advance of compulsory purchase. These powers are set out under Part 7 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 (HPA 2016).
The judgment significantly clarifies what is expected of acquiring authorities exercising these powers and should give comfort to owners and occupiers of land in England and Wales which may be affected by infrastructure projects in future.
This article considers the Court’s declarations relating to the requirements for notices served under Part 7 HPA 2016.
The facts
The case was brought by three claimants: first, Natalie Barstow, who operates a farm in Powys, Wales with her family; secondly the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW); and thirdly the Land Justice Coalition (t/a Justice for Wales).
The defendant, Green Generation Energy Networks Cymru Limited, was an Independent Distribution Network Operator. As an “acquiring authority” under Part 7 HPA 2016, the defendant had rights under section 172 to enter and survey land in connection with its assessment of potential routes for grid connections to renewable energy schemes. The exercise of these powers was contingent on giving notice to every owner and occupier of the relevant land under section 174.
The claimants had concerns about how the defendant exercised its rights under Part 7 HPA 2016 and argued that, on a number of occasions, the defendant had failed to exercise its statutory powers lawfully.
The first claimant challenged the defendant’s entry onto her family’s land in July 2025, following the service of a section 174 notice in August 2024, which did not provide any specific details about the surveys proposed or the intended date or time of entry.
The claimants further relied on evidence from other landowners and occupiers who alleged similar entries onto their land without adequate notice. A central concern was what the claimants regarded as the heavy-handed approach adopted by some of the defendant’s representatives, and the defendant’s apparent failure to take account of biosecurity risks.
Judgment
The Judge granted declaratory relief on the construction of the statutory scheme for entry onto land under Part 7 HPA 2016. The Judge emphasised the importance of giving proper notice together with “genuine and courteous engagement” with the landowner or occupier, including providing them with enough information to make any necessary arrangements.
Key takeaways from the judgment include:
- Notice under section 174 must be given to every owner and occupier of the land.
- Service by ordinary post is sufficient without proof of actual receipt. The Judge commented that the first claimant’s practice of recycling post addressed to “the Occupier” without reading it was “unwise”.
- Notices under section 174 do not run with the land, as they are not intended to have long-term effect.
- The requirement to give 14 days’ notice does not mean that the acquiring authority must specify the date of entry. However, the period during which the notice remains effective and what amounts to “reasonable time” under section 172(2)(a) depends on the nature of the activity and the circumstances of each proposed entry.
- The requirement to give “details of what is proposed” under section 174(3) should be read consistently with the Code of Practice on Powers of Entry. It should include sufficient detail of the activity and its location to enable the recipient to understand what will happen and should invite the recipient to provide information about the circumstances of the land and its owners or occupiers.
These comprehensive rulings on the notice requirements under Part 7 HPA 2016 should leave acquiring authorities in little doubt of their obligations. The Court’s declarations should prevent acquiring authorities from treating notices as a tick-box exercise and instead encourage authorities to consider what is an appropriate balance between their rights and those of landowners and occupiers.