What does the Consultation cover, and why has it been launched?
On 8 July 2025, the government launched a consultation seeking views on its proposed reforms to consents, land rights and access processes for building and maintaining electricity network infrastructure.
In support of the government's wider Net Zero and Clean Power by 2030 aims, these reforms seek to enable the rapid deployment of new transmission and distribution network infrastructure, and future network connections, while ensuring that the rights of landowners and the environment are respected. The need for streamlining is clear: NESO has said that twice as much new transmission network infrastructure will be needed by 2030 as has been delivered in the past decade. The government's analysis also suggests between 210,000 km and 460,000 km of additional distribution network cabling may be required by 2050.
The government's proposal for reform in this area, albeit by way of smaller targeted interventions rather than wholesale overhaul, is a positive step. Currently, the processes for network operators to access land and obtain the necessary land rights can be costly, time consuming and involve a degree of creativity, all of which can cause significant delays to the roll out of projects.
This article explores the government's 12 proposed reforms, with a particular focus on those relating to a necessary wayleave (a statutory right that allows electricity companies to install and maintain power lines on private land, even if the landowner does not agree to it).
The 12 Proposals
The government's 12 proposals for reform are:
Necessary wayleaves
- Introducing a requirement for the landowner/occupier to provide a reason when serving a Notice to Remove (being a formal request served by a landowner/occupier on the licence holder for the removal of an existing electric line) and extending the application submission timeframe for a necessary wayleave from 3 to 6 months.
- Removing the requirement to obtain the consent of both parties for the written representations procedure to apply.
- Removing the requirement to appoint an external Inspector.
- Supporting the use of virtual hearings where an Inspector considers this to be appropriate.
- Extending the standard term of a necessary wayleave from 15 to 40 years.
Trees
- Shifting tree maintenance responsibilities from landowners to licence holders.
Substations
- Increasing the permitted development threshold for substations from 29 to 45 cubic metres (m³).
Section 37 consenting for overhead lines
- Revising the criteria for when the section 37 consent process under the Electricity Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) is required.
Private streets
- Amending schedule 4 to the 1989 Act to facilitate the installation of cables in private streets by granting Distribution Network Operators the right to install and upgrade underground electricity cables in any street including a private street.
Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) threshold
- Removing 132 kV wooden pole lines from the NSIP regime and increasing the NSIP distance threshold from 2 km to 10 km.
Access Rights
- Clarifying that access rights include as much land as is
necessary to access infrastructure, including adjacent third-party
land.
- Expanding access rights to transmission owners.
Do the proposals go far enough?
In choosing its proposed interventions, the government has clearly listened to stakeholders and industry groups, including those that responded to the Call for Evidence on the same topic in 2022, and has tried to tweak pain points in the existing processes rather than reinvent the wheel. This is not a bad approach – the existing processes are well-known to network operators and implementing small efficiencies to these can lead to large time, cost and resource savings and greater certainty when multiplied across an extensive network of apparatus. However, in the case of the reforms to necessary wayleaves, we consider there are areas where government could go further.
Necessary wayleaves
The proposed reforms to necessary wayleaves are all sensible, if not groundbreaking.
- Proposal 1 - Where an operator has existing apparatus in place, a Notice to Remove is a document of potentially significant consequence – it is right that it should include more information on the landowner's reason for serving it, and that the immediate time pressure on the operator to prepare and submit its necessary wayleave application in response should be eased.
- Proposals 2 and 4 - Removing the ability for just one of the parties to block the use of written representations and supporting the use of virtual hearings will ensure that clear-cut applications do not entail the cost and inconvenience of having to procure and attend a hearing venue and will reduce opportunities for so-motivated landowners to frustrate and elongate the process.
- Proposal 3 - Moving the evaluation role from the Planning Inspectorate to departmental officials to free up Inspectors for other planning processes sounds attractive, but we are not convinced that shifting the burden between two entities, both of which are part of the planning process, will materially shift the dial on resourcing.
- Proposal 5 - The increase in the default term of necessary wayleaves to 40 years is positive. Whilst we have had success obtaining a term longer than 15 years, this was hard-fought even with compelling evidence. Reframing the process so that 40 years is the starting point will provide greater certainty for apparatus with a longer lifespan than 15 years (which is not uncommon).
Going further?
If the government wanted to go further, it could:
- Amend the 1989 Act to curtail or remove the ability of successor landowners to serve a Notice to Remove during the term of a necessary wayleave, and therefore reflecting the statutory process and ministerial decision that led to its grant. This would remove the possibility that a network operator could go through the full process to secure a necessary wayleave only to have to do so again shortly after being granted one if there is a change in ownership of the land.
- Establish a definitive registration regime for necessary wayleaves so there is a public record of the statutory agreement, putting potential buyers or others interested in the land on notice of the existence of the necessary wayleave. It is possible to register necessary wayleaves as a local land charge. HM Land Registry is in the process of centralising the local land charges register, but currently only some local authorities have migrated to their service. You therefore have to check whether this service has migrated for the relevant local authority. If so, the application is to be made to HM Land Registry but if not, this can still be made to the Local Land Charges Department at the relevant local authority. Either way, it is a time-consuming process and there is no established regime.
- Clarify the existing law and guidance to resolve points of
ambiguity. For instance, clarifying that:
- Once a voluntary contractual wayleave comes to an end on a change of ownership or following the expiry of its term, its provisions are deemed to continue until the landowner serves a Notice to Remove - this would provide reassurance to operators that they can continue to exercise their rights under the wayleave in this shadow period.
- A necessary wayleave can be sought for an existing cable before a Notice to Remove is served by a landowner - this would ensure that the network operator can seek and obtain certainty as to the legal status of its apparatus, without having to wait for a landowner to take the first step.
What next?
Once the consultation closes on 2 September 2025, the government has said it will look to deliver the proposals over the following 18 months.
Network companies, landowners and connection customers (including housing developers, renewable energy developers and EV charge point installers) will therefore be keen to make their voices heard by responding to this consultation before the government implements these proposals.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
