Landsul Limited v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2026] EWHC 2887 (Admin)

Landsul Limited v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2026] EWHC 2887 (Admin) concerned compulsory acquisition powers in the Cory Decarbonisation Project Order 2025. Landsul owned industrial land at Belvedere occupied by Munster Joinery. The development consent order authorised Cory Environmental Holdings Limited to acquire that land for a carbon capture facility serving two energy-from-waste plants.

Mr Justice Mould dismissed Landsul’s challenge. The court held that an indicative layout could provide a proper evidential basis for deciding whether land was required under section 122 of the Planning Act 2008. A technically feasible alternative layout did not compel the examining authority to conclude that the disputed land was unnecessary.

Court: High Court, King’s Bench Division, Planning Court. Judge: Mr Justice Mould. Judgment date: 10 November 2026. Case number: AC-2025-LON-004494. Outcome: claim dismissed.

The Cory carbon capture scheme

The Cory Decarbonisation Project Order authorises a carbon capture facility beside the Riverside 1 and Riverside 2 energy-from-waste generating stations at Belvedere in the London Borough of Bexley. The scheme is expected to capture at least 95 per cent of the carbon dioxide emissions from the two stations.

Landsul owned 7,838 square metres of hardstanding, buildings and shrubbery within the order land. Munster Joinery used the site as an industrial and distribution warehouse employing 67 people. Landsul also held planning permission for further warehouse development. It objected to compulsory acquisition on the basis that the carbon capture facility could be arranged without taking its land.

Landsul’s specialist consultant produced alternative layouts. His evidence was that the project could be delivered within the scope of the draft order while avoiding the disputed site. Particular attention was given to the size of the electricity substation, the proposed heat transfer station and whether the operational plant needed to occupy a contiguous area.

Required land under section 122

Section 122(2) of the 2008 Act allows compulsory acquisition only where the land is required for the authorised development, required to facilitate it or incidental to it, or provided as replacement land. Section 122(3) also requires a compelling case in the public interest.

Landsul argued that the examining authority had asked whether its land was needed for Cory’s preferred indicative layout, rather than whether it was needed for the development authorised by the order. Mould J rejected that distinction on the facts. An indicative layout may be evidence of the land reasonably required for the authorised works. An alternative layout may also be relevant evidence, but neither layout is automatically decisive.

The examining authority had considered the competing arrangements and the criticism of Cory’s design. It was entitled to accept that Cory reasonably required a contiguous operational site. The fact that Landsul’s non-contiguous alternative was technically feasible did not make the authority’s conclusion irrational or legally misdirected.

The compelling public-interest case

The court also rejected the argument that the public-interest condition was not met. Landsul said a smaller electricity substation could reduce the land needed and questioned the justification for reserving land for a heat transfer station when no heat network or confirmed demand yet existed.

The examining authority was entitled to distinguish technical possibility from a deliverable project. Cory proposed a 132 kV substation and considered a lower-voltage arrangement uncertain and operationally difficult. National and local policy also supported provision for future heat networks. The authority could conclude that the heat transfer station had a realistic policy-supported purpose even though commercial connections had not yet been secured.

The statutory question was not whether every alternative had been eliminated. It was whether the Secretary of State could lawfully be satisfied that the land was required in the circumstances and that a compelling public-interest case existed. On the evidence and reasoning recorded, those conditions were satisfied.

Proportionality and property rights

Landsul relied on article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. The court made its own proportionality assessment while giving considerable weight to the informed findings reached through the development consent examination.

Assembling the land reasonably required for the carbon capture scheme was a legitimate aim. Excluding Landsul’s land would have compromised the proposed layout, operational contiguity and timely delivery. The judge weighed the interference with the owner and occupier against the public benefits of the project and the availability of statutory compensation.

Compulsory acquisition did not have to be shown to be absolutely indispensable. It had to be reasonably necessary in the circumstances and strike a fair balance. The court found that test was met.

What the right to be heard requires

The judgment gives important guidance on compulsory acquisition hearings under section 92 of the 2008 Act. An affected landowner who requests a hearing is entitled to address the whole of the objection, not merely a selected part of it. Two practical requirements follow: the owner must have a proper opportunity to cover the key contentions, and must know the applicant’s key responses so that the oral case can be presented on an informed basis.

That entitlement does not create a right to another hearing whenever later evidence is submitted. Development consent examinations are primarily written, iterative and subject to a statutory timetable. A further hearing may be necessary where the essential opportunity has not been provided, but it is not required merely to rehearse every subsequent technical document.

Landsul had been able to address the electricity infrastructure, site layout, contiguity and heat-transfer issues at the second compulsory acquisition hearing. Cory’s position had also been explained. The later written evidence did not materially change the parties’ key cases, so the refusal to arrange a third hearing was lawful and fair.

No general right to cross-examine

Mould J emphasised that the Planning Act examination is inquisitorial. Section 94 and the examination rules generally place oral questioning in the hands of the examining authority. Cross-examination by another party is exceptional and depends on whether it is needed to test representations adequately or give a fair chance to put a case.

The court did not accept that fairness or article 6 created a general right for a landowner to cross-examine the applicant’s witnesses in every compulsory acquisition dispute. Nor did the absence of civil-procedure expert declarations make Cory’s technical evidence inadmissible or devoid of weight. The examining authority could assess all the evidence for its adequacy and persuasiveness.

Why Landsul matters

The decision is important for promoters and affected owners in nationally significant infrastructure examinations. A challenger cannot defeat compulsory acquisition simply by producing a technically possible alternative. The examining authority must engage with the competing evidence, but may prefer the promoter’s operational requirements where it gives rational reasons and applies the statutory tests.

The procedural lesson is equally significant. A landowner’s section 92 right is substantive: it covers the key case against acquisition and requires knowledge of the promoter’s key answer. But the right operates within an inquisitorial, time-limited process and does not convert the examination into conventional civil litigation.

Planning Geek’s guide to national policy statements for nationally significant infrastructure projects explains how national policy shapes the development consent process.

Planning Geek holds the complete 63-page approved judgment. Gold members can access the protected copy below.