Infrastructure Projects - Take care when accessing land under statutory powers

Introduction

Access to private property to undertake ecological, archaeological, engineering and related surveys, particularly to inform the design and planning of major infrastructure projects, can present difficulties for environmental consultants and surveyors. Surveyors requiring pre acquisition access to private property for surveying or valuation, where compulsory acquisition powers may be sought, presents similar difficulties.  

The key statutory provisions authorising access for these purposes are found in sections 172–174 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016. In the recent high case of Barstow and Others v Green Generation Energy Networks Cymru Ltd (6 July 2026) Kimlin J clarified how statutory authorities and their survey teams must exercise statutory rights of entry under that Act.

Whilst for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in England, ordinarily section 53 Planning Act 2008 provides the requisite statutory provision authorising access. However, the principles established in this case are highly relevant and applicable, despite procedural changes brought into force on 24 July 2026 under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. 

The central message in this case is clear; statutory provisions are not a licence for generic, open-ended or poorly coordinated access. Each entry must be properly notified, sufficiently framed in terms of purpose and reasonable in the circumstances of the affected land and occupiers. 

Case summary

Green Generation Energy Networks Cymru Ltd (“Green GEN”), an independent distribution network operator and statutory authority, is developing three proposed 132kV grid-connection projects in Wales and England. It relied on sections 172–174 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 to enter private land and undertake ecological, archaeological, engineering and related surveys needed to select routes and prepare environmental assessments. 

Natalie Barstow, together with the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and the Land Justice Coalition, challenged Green GEN’s entry onto her family’s farm and its wider approach to land access. The complaints included generic notices, inadequate warning of particular visits, uncertainty over boundaries, failure to produce identification or authority, biosecurity concerns, the effect of surveys on livestock and vulnerable occupiers, and the collection and retention of information obtained during surveys. 

Green GEN’s section 174 notices identified entire land parcels and listed up to 24 possible types of survey over broad seasonal periods. Its operational approach was to carry out multiple disciplines during two-week windows, without necessarily providing precise dates and times for each team’s attendance. In several instances, landowners described unannounced visits, inadequate paperwork, uncertainty about surveyors’ identity and concerns over footwear, disinfection, livestock and disease restrictions. 

The Court considered five principal issues concerning statutory access: who must receive notice; whether a notice runs with the land; what “at least 14 days’ notice” (s.174(1)) means; when entry occurs at “a reasonable time”; (s.172(2)(a)) and how much detail must be provided about the proposed survey. It also addressed human rights, biodiversity and livestock issues, alleged irrationality, and data protection. 

The Court’s findings

The Court paid particular attention to the Code of Practice on powers of entry (“the Code”) which came into force on 6 April 2015 pursuant to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Code of Practice for Powers of Entry and Description of Relevant Persons) Order 2015. A person seeking access is required by to have regard to the Code. 

The Court provided a fivefold ruling on the principal issues under consideration: 

1. Notice under section 174 must be given to every owner and every occupier. Both classes are entitled to equivalent notice because the effect and purpose of the power granted to authorities is to authorise that which would otherwise be a tortious interference with the rights of owners and occupiers. Kimlin j observed (paragraph 119) “…It would be in nobody’s interest for one class of persons who have an interest in the land to be able to obstruct entry but for another class of people being at risk of prosecution if they obstructed entry”.  
   
   Notice may be served by ordinary post, and actual receipt need not be proved, although the authority must make reasonable enquiries into ownership and occupation and may need to affix a notice to the land where those enquiries are inconclusive.
2. A section 174 notice does not run with the land. A purchaser, tenant or new occupier is not automatically bound by notice served on a predecessor, and responsibility for notification cannot simply be transferred to a landlord or other intermediary.
3. The statutory minimum of 14 days’ notice does not require the initial notice to specify the exact first day of entry. However, the notice cannot remain effective indefinitely: its duration depends on the proposed activity and the circumstances of each entry, and the authority should ordinarily be able to state an expiry date and serve further notices when necessary. Reliance on stale or open-ended notices for months or years was inconsistent with the statutory purpose and the Code.
4. Entry at “a reasonable time” requires consideration of the timing (based on the 14 days’ notice), frequency, duration and effect of the proposed work, together with the characteristics of the land and the circumstances of its owners and occupiers. Relevant considerations may include farming operations, livestock management including bovine tuberculosis restrictions, crops, dangerous features, tourism businesses, health, disability and family circumstances.
5. Notices must explain, with such precision as is reasonably practicable, what will be done, where and when. Kimlin J observed that the notice “…is to be framed having regard to the Code of Practice on Powers of Entry, including: (a) such detail of the activity and its location to reasonably enable the recipient to understand what will happen on the land; (b) inviting provision of information which would allow the exercise of the right of entry to take account of the circumstances which relate to the land, the owner and the occupants” . The Code indicates that reasonable advance notice will ordinarily be at least 48 hours and should identify the purpose, date and time of the visit. Green GEN’s pro-forma notices and blanket corporate authorisations were insufficiently particularised, although the Court accepted that the statutory scheme must remain workable and cannot be interpreted to frustrate legitimate surveys. 

The Court issued declarations clarifying the law but declined to quash any notices or supervise future use of the powers. It ultimately awarded the claimants 60% of their capped costs, reflecting their success in changing Green GEN’s procedures.

Conclusion and practical lessons for consultants and surveyors

1. Rules on notice drafting and service are precise. For entry to be legally robust, the five points referred to above must guide entry procedures. If in doubt, specialist legal advice should be sought.
2. Confirm lawful authority before deployment. Every individual attending should know the statutory basis for entry, the notice relied upon and the land to which the authority applies. Surveyors and consultants should carry identification and evidence of written authority and produce them when requested.
3. Survey instructions and mapping should identify the relevant access route and working area precisely enough to avoid accidental boundary crossings. Blanket authorisations covering an entire project are poor practice because they do not focus the team on parcel-specific limitations.
4. Make pre-entry contact. Even if the initial statutory notice does not name an exact entry date, the operational process should provide advance contact, at least 48 hours, confirming the proposed date, time, personnel, location and activity.
5. Undertake a site-specific risk assessment. Survey planning should address livestock, disease controls, disinfecting equipment, crops, water supplies, unstable ground, wells, protected habitats, lone or vulnerable occupiers and any night-time working.
6. Minimise intrusion. Teams should use the smallest reasonable number of personnel and visits, coordinate disciplines where safe and appropriate, and consider whether the objective can be achieved by less intrusive means. On land subject to disease restrictions, reducing movement between holdings may be particularly important.
7. Respect objections without making threats. Opposition to a project does not remove an occupier’s entitlement to proper notice and reasonable treatment. Surveyors and consultants should record concerns, withdraw where authority or safety is genuinely uncertain, and escalate disputes through the acquiring authority rather than improvising legal warnings on site.
8. Maintain an auditable access record. The project file should record service enquiries, notices, pre-entry communications, authority documents, risk and biosecurity assessments, attendance, activities undertaken, photographs or samples collected, incidents and departure conditions. This evidence will be central if the legality or reasonableness of an entry is later challenged. 

Whilst access to land is necessary for infrastructure projects, and ideally with the consent of the owner and occupier under a written agreement, there are important procedural steps to be observed if engaging the statutory provisions. As this case demonstrates, utmost care should be taken in managing access arrangements to avoid distinct traps which can set a project back many months or even years.