Landsul v Secretary of State: High Court upholds compulsory purchase for Cory carbon capture DCO

The Planning Court has dismissed a landowner's challenge to compulsory purchase powers in the Cory Decarbonisation Project Order 2025, clarifying the scope of an affected owner's right to be heard at a compulsory acquisition hearing under the Planning Act 2008.

In Landsul Ltd v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2026] EWHC 2887 (Admin), Mould J rejected all three grounds brought under section 118 against the order. The order authorises a carbon capture facility serving the Riverside 1 and Riverside 2 energy from waste plants at Belvedere in the London Borough of Bexley, designed to capture at least 95% of their emissions.

Landsul owns around 0.78 hectares of industrial land within the Order land, occupied by Munster Joinery as a distribution warehouse employing 67 people. Its expert produced alternative layouts said to show the scheme could be delivered without the site, including a final layout placing the heat transfer station on land to the south.

Indicative layouts and the "required" test

Richard Turney KC, for Landsul, argued that the Examining Authority had asked whether the land was needed for Cory's indicative equipment layout rather than for the authorised development, as section 122(2) requires.

Mould J held that an indicative layout can provide a proper evidential basis for a finding either way on section 122(2). Weighing the competing layouts was a matter for the Examining Authority, which had addressed the correct question. It was reasonably entitled to accept Cory's requirement for a contiguous operational site, reflected in the scheme's design principles, even though the alternative was technically feasible.

On the compelling case test in section 122(3), it was legitimate for Cory to design around a 132 kV substation it was confident of delivering, rather than an 11 kV alternative that the landowner's own consultants accepted would be challenging. Land for the heat transfer station could also be justified by national and local policy on heat networks and combined heat and power, despite there being no connecting network yet and uncertain demand.

Proportionality under A1P1

Applying Shvidler, the judge made his own assessment of proportionality while giving considerable weight to the Examining Authority's findings. Strict necessity was not the test (Clays Lane). Excluding the land would unacceptably compromise timely delivery, operation and policy compliance, and the availability of statutory compensation mitigated the impact on Landsul and Munster.

Right to be heard and cross-examination

On procedural fairness, Mould J accepted that the section 92 right to be heard extends to the whole of an affected owner's objection. That carries two essential requirements: a proper opportunity to address the key contentions underpinning the objection, and awareness of the applicant's key responses. It does not, however, confer a right to further hearings to address every item of later written evidence, which would undermine the statutory timetable. Both requirements were met at the second hearing in February 2025, and the refusal of a third was fair.

The judge rejected the argument that fairness or article 6 requires a landowner to be allowed to cross-examine the acquiring authority's witnesses. Authorities such as Errington concerned adversarial public inquiries, while the 2008 Act process is deliberately inquisitorial, and section 94(7) is consistent with article 6.

A further submission that Landsul's expert evidence stood uncontested because Cory's witnesses had not complied with CPR Part 35 formalities also failed. Those requirements do not apply to examinations, and the Examining Authority was entitled to assess all technical evidence for its adequacy and persuasiveness.

Tozer LLP instructed counsel for the claimant, the Government Legal Department for the Secretary of State and Pinsent Masons LLP for Cory.