FULL STORY

When Corporate Power Becomes Pressure: A Landowner’s Challenge to the Electricity Infrastructure System
A dispute that raises wider questions

A dispute between a smaller landowning company and major electricity-sector organisations raises a fundamental question about fairness: what happens when a powerful infrastructure operator can occupy private land without an established current right, offer a sum it has selected, decline to disclose the valuation behind that figure, and then point to the cost and complexity of the statutory process as a reason for the landowner to accept?

That is the position faced by Land Logical Limited in relation to electricity apparatus situated on its land. National Grid Electricity Transmission, with correspondence involving UKPN and CBRE, maintains that it is entitled to seek a Necessary Wayleave if the matter is taken out of abeyance. It has offered £50,000 to resolve the dispute by agreement.

Land Logical rejects that offer.

The issue is not simply whether £50,000 is an attractive settlement figure. The deeper concern is whether the figure has been properly justified at all, and whether the structure of the dispute places disproportionate pressure on the smaller party to accept an amount determined by the larger organisation rather than one established through transparent evidence.

The central legal position

In his response, Henry Church acknowledged that there is presently:

“no wayleave or other right that grants NGET the right to retain their apparatus over/on the Land Logical land.”
That admission is central. It means the parties are not dealing with a straightforward case in which an undisputed easement exists and only the level of compensation remains to be agreed.

The correspondence indicates that a Notice to Remove was served in 2017. The matter was then held in abeyance while the parties explored an agreement under which the apparatus could remain.

Henry’s position is that if either party takes the matter out of abeyance, NGET will seek a Necessary Wayleave. He further states that NGET expects to make a sufficiently robust case for the apparatus to remain and that a Necessary Wayleave would probably be granted.

That is NGET’s expectation. It is not the same as an independent determination.

A Necessary Wayleave would have to be sought through the statutory process. The landowner would have the opportunity to object and to present evidence concerning the legal, planning, technical and financial consequences of retaining the apparatus.

The £50,000 offer and the missing justification

NGET’s position is that £50,000 reflects the value of granting an easement and the costs it would save by avoiding a Necessary Wayleave process.

However, the correspondence does not identify a transparent valuation calculation showing how the figure was reached. Henry has confirmed that no residual valuation or development appraisal has been provided in support of the offer.

That creates a basic evidential problem.

A settlement figure can be commercially negotiated without being a formal valuation. But if the figure is presented as reflecting the compensation consequences of retaining the apparatus, the landowner is entitled to ask:

What land interest has been valued?
What is the valuation date?
What are the “before” and “after” assumptions?
What development scheme has been considered?
What planning probability has been adopted?
What effect has been attributed to the overhead apparatus?
How have the pipeline and landfill constraints been treated?
What mitigation has been assumed?
What comparable land transactions support the figure?
What calculation produces £50,000 rather than £100,000, £500,000 or a substantially higher sum?
Without those answers, the figure remains an assertion.

The size and resources of the organisation making an offer cannot turn an unsupported number into an objectively correct one.

A valid development scheme versus an assertion of unviability

CBRE has reportedly maintained that the proposed housing scheme is unviable. Land Logical disputes that assessment and has evidence from an independent expert opinion supporting the scheme’s viability.

That conflict should be resolved through disclosure, methodology and expert evidence—not through the repetition of a conclusion.

The existence of development potential does not depend solely on whether planning permission has already been granted. Land may possess hope value where there is a realistic prospect of securing planning permission. The relevant question is not whether the scheme is guaranteed, but what a properly informed market participant would pay for the land at the relevant valuation date.

Land Logical’s position is that it has a valid and credible development scheme capable of being assessed on its merits. The presence of electricity infrastructure may affect the scheme, but it does not automatically establish that the scheme is impossible or commercially worthless.

If CBRE’s position is that the scheme is unviable, its analysis should be capable of being tested. It should identify:

The scheme assessed;
The number and type of homes;
The layout and density;
The infrastructure assumptions;
The abnormal costs;
The assumed sales values;
The construction costs;
The finance costs;
The planning assumptions;
The impact of the electricity apparatus; and
The specific reason the scheme fails.
A conclusion without an open-book appraisal does not provide the landowner with a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The refusal to investigate alternatives

Land Logical has sought information about possible diversion, rerouting or undergrounding of the apparatus. The purpose is not necessarily to argue that NGET must adopt the most expensive alternative. The purpose is to understand the factual options and their effect on the land.

Henry’s response states that NGET sees no benefit in scoping or costing an alternative alignment and considers the issue irrelevant to the proposed resolution.

That position is open to serious criticism.

If NGET is seeking to retain apparatus on land with development potential, the existing alignment is directly relevant to:

The amount of land sterilised;
The location of developable plots;
Building separation distances;
Visual and amenity impacts;
Access and infrastructure design;
The number of homes achievable;
The marketability of the scheme; and
The diminution in land value.
A technical feasibility assessment would not decide the compensation figure by itself. It would, however, help establish whether the existing alignment is an unavoidable constraint or merely the cheapest and most convenient arrangement for the network operator.

There is a material difference between saying that undergrounding would cost a large amount and proving that no reasonable alternative is technically or operationally available. The reported cost of undergrounding—at least £1 million—may be significant to NGET, but it does not demonstrate that the landowner should receive only £50,000. Nor does it establish that the cost of an alternative can be transferred to the landowner through the valuation.

The cost to the network operator of moving its apparatus is not automatically the same as the loss suffered by the landowner from leaving it in place.

The pipeline argument

Henry also relies on the existence of an oil-pipeline easement. He points out that the pipeline was identified as a constraint in an earlier Design and Access Statement and suggests that it is inconsistent for Land Logical to treat it as a constraint in one context but not another.

That comparison requires care.

A pipeline constraint and an overhead electricity constraint may affect different parts of a scheme in different ways. The relevant question is whether each constraint causes a separate loss and, if so, how the effects should be measured without double counting.

The pipeline easement reportedly contains a lift-and-shift provision under which Land Logical can seek relocation at the pipeline operator’s expense, subject to an alternative route meeting specified requirements. The existence of that contractual right may reduce the pipeline’s impact, depending on its practical operation.

The fact that relocation would be expensive does not, by itself, prove that the pipeline makes development impossible. Nor does the possibility that the pipeline operator would prefer to avoid the cost establish the market value of Land Logical’s land.

The proper assessment should distinguish between:

The legal effect of the pipeline easement;
The practical ability to exercise the lift-and-shift right;
The cost and timing of relocation;
The impact of the pipeline if retained;
The impact of the electricity apparatus if retained; and
Any overlap between the two constraints.
Treating the existence of the pipeline as a reason to discount the land, without quantifying its separate effect, risks obscuring rather than resolving the valuation issue.

The psychology of the statutory process

The most powerful feature of the current position may not be any single legal argument. It may be the pressure created by the prospect of a complex statutory process.

Henry’s correspondence states that if a Necessary Wayleave is pursued, each party will generally bear its own costs, subject to possible recovery where Land Logical successfully resists the application.

For a large network operator, the cost of lawyers, surveyors, engineers and counsel may be absorbed as part of a major corporate operation. For a smaller landowning company, the prospect of a contested application, expert evidence and possible Upper Tribunal compensation proceedings can be intimidating and financially disruptive.

That imbalance can create pressure even where the smaller party has a credible case.

The practical message received by the landowner may appear to be:

NGET has greater resources;
NGET expects to win;
The process will be expensive;
The outcome is said to be predetermined;
Alternative engineering solutions will not be investigated;
The valuation supporting the offer will not be disclosed; and
The landowner should accept the figure offered.
That may not be described in formal correspondence as coercion. But in its practical effect, it can feel like corporate pressure designed to make resistance seem futile.

The concern is not that a network operator has no right to defend its infrastructure. The concern is that institutional power must not substitute for evidence.

Why the language of bullying arises

The word “bullying” is strong. In a legal or public article, it should therefore be used carefully and supported by the underlying conduct rather than presented as an established legal finding.

The allegation arises from the combined effect of several features:

The acknowledgement that no current right has been established;
The existence of a Notice to Remove dating from 2017;
The assertion that a Necessary Wayleave will probably be granted;
The refusal to treat that outcome as uncertain;
The offer of £50,000 without a disclosed valuation appraisal;
The rejection of requests for technical feasibility work;
The reliance on the resources and cost of the statutory process; and
The implication that the landowner’s practical choices are limited to accepting an easement or facing a wayleave application.
Each point may be capable of an innocent explanation when considered separately. Taken together, they create a serious perception of institutional pressure.

The smaller party is not merely negotiating against an opposing company. It is negotiating against a system in which the network operator controls the technical information, has access to substantial financial resources and can invoke a statutory process that the landowner may find burdensome.

That is why transparency matters.

The need for an evidence-led process

A fair process would require both sides to disclose the material assumptions behind their positions.

NGET and its advisers should be asked to provide:

The legal basis relied upon for continued retention;
The full technical description of the apparatus;
Ownership and operational responsibility;
The 2017 Notice to Remove file;
The proposed Necessary Wayleave terms;
Any existing internal engineering assessment;
The reasons alternative alignments have not been assessed;
The valuation methodology;
The comparable evidence;
The treatment of development potential;
The treatment of the pipeline and landfill; and
The specific appraisal said to demonstrate that the housing scheme is unviable.
Land Logical should, in turn, assemble:

The planning and development evidence;
The independent opinion supporting viability;
A realistic development appraisal;
A before-and-after valuation;
A technical plan showing the apparatus and constraints;
Evidence of the effect on housing numbers and layout; and
Expert evidence addressing reasonable mitigation.
That would allow the parties to negotiate from evidence rather than from corporate authority.

What the dispute says about smaller landowners

Electricity infrastructure is essential to the national economy. Network operators need secure rights to construct, operate and maintain their assets. But the importance of infrastructure does not erase private property rights.

A smaller landowner should not be expected to accept an arbitrary payment simply because the other side owns critical infrastructure. Nor should the prospect of a statutory application be used, deliberately or otherwise, to make a landowner believe that contesting the position is pointless.

The proper balance is not achieved by treating the operator’s preferred outcome as inevitable. It is achieved by:

Establishing the legal right;
Testing the necessity of the proposed occupation;
Examining reasonable alternatives;
Valuing the land transparently;
Separating genuine constraints from assumed constraints; and
Ensuring the smaller party has a realistic opportunity to participate.
Conclusion

This dispute illustrates how corporate power can operate through procedure, resources and assertion rather than through overt threats. A major infrastructure organisation may not need to issue an explicit ultimatum. It may create pressure simply by presenting its preferred figure as reasonable, its own assessment as conclusive and the statutory process as an unattractive alternative.

Land Logical’s case is that £50,000 has not been properly justified, that its development scheme has not been fairly assessed, and that the effect of retaining the apparatus has not been tested against credible technical alternatives.

Whether the conduct ultimately meets the legal definition of improper pressure or bullying would be a matter for the evidence and, if necessary, the relevant tribunal. But the underlying concern is clear: a smaller landowner should not be forced to choose between accepting an unexplained figure and facing a process made intimidating by the other side’s superior resources.

The answer is transparency, independent valuation and a properly evidenced statutory process. Corporate strength should not be allowed to replace legal entitlement or factual justification.