Compulsory purchase and infrastructure planning

On 10 November 2026, Mr Justice Mould handed down judgment in Landsul Ltd v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2026] EWHC 2887 (Admin), dismissing the judicial review challenge to the Cory Decarbonisation Project Order 2025 (“the DCO”).

The Claimant, Landsul Ltd, was a freehold landowner whose land was acquired for the purposes of the DCO. The DCO authorises the construction and operation of a carbon capture facility designed to capture carbon dioxide emissions from the Riverside 1 and Riverside 2 Energy from Waste electricity generating stations located adjacent to the River Thames at Belvedere in the London Borough of Bexley. Following an examination before the Examining Authority (“ExA”) from 5 November 2024 to 5 May 2025, the ExA recommended that development consent should be granted. On 5 November 2025 the Secretary of State (“SoS”) accepted that recommendation and made the DCO.

The Claimant challenged the decision of the SoS to make the DCO conferring compulsory purchase powers on the Second Interested Party, Cory, on three main grounds.

Dismissing the claim in its entirety, Mr Justice Mould held:

1) On Ground 1, that the SoS in adopting the ExA’s reasoning did not err in respect of s. 122(2) of the Planning Act 2008 (“the 2008 Act”). It was open to him reasonably to find that the Claimant’s land was required for the authorised development (§148). The SoS also did not err in respect of s. 122(3) of the 2008 Act. He was entitled to conclude that a compelling case for the acquisition of land had been made out (§§161, 169).

2) On Ground 2, that a legitimate purpose for compulsory acquisition had properly been identified (§176) and that the grant of compulsory acquisition powers was a necessary and proportionate means of achieving that purpose. There was accordingly no breach of the Claimant’s rights protected under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR (§197).

3) On Ground 3, that there was no procedural unfairness suffered by the Claimant during the examination process. The ExA’s refusal of the Claimant’s request to hold a further compulsory acquisition hearing at a relatively late stage in the examination process was reasonable, justified and did not deprive the Claimant of a proper opportunity to be heard on the whole of its objection (§220). Under the inquisitorial procedure of an examination under the 2008 Act, the ExA acted fairly and reasonably in declining the Claimant’s request to cross-examine Cory’s witnesses (§§242-245). The ExA also did not err in rejecting the expert evidence adduced by the Claimant during the examination (§253).

The judgment is likely to be of wide interest to all those involved with compulsory acquisition in the context of infrastructure planning.

Hugh Flanagan and Jeffrey Chu acted for the Defendant, the Secretary of State.

Rebecca Clutten acted for the Second Interested Party, Cory Environmental Holdings Ltd, instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP and assisted by Kate Tidmarsh.

Andrew Tait KC and Rebecca Clutten acted for Cory Environmental Holdings Ltd during the examination stage of the DCO, instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP.