A High Court judge has criticised energy company Green GEN Cymru for its treatment of Welsh farmers whose land it needed to access for surveys related to a proposed electricity pylon superhighway. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Kimblin at Cardiff's Civil Justice Centre, found that the company had taken a 'pro-forma approach' to communication, failing to engage genuinely and courteously with landowners.
Case Background and Key Ruling
The lead claimant was Natalie Barstow, owner of Fforest Fields caravan and camping site in mid Wales, supported by the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and the Land Justice Coalition. The case was brought on behalf of approximately 500 local farmers, businesses, and landowners. Mr Justice Kimblin ruled that Green GEN Cymru had given 'unduly broad' notices and lacked 'particularity' in its communications. He stated: 'Landowners and occupiers are likely to be more accepting of a notice and an acquiring authority’s needs if a notice provides for genuine and courteous engagement.'
Failure to Address Bovine Tuberculosis Risks
The judge specifically highlighted the company's failure to consider the risks of spreading bovine tuberculosis (bTB) when accessing land with bTB restrictions. He said: 'The failure to grapple with the risks of transmission of bTB to be the clearest example of a gap in the Defendant’s insight into the justifiable needs and concerns of those whose land they would enter.' He suggested mitigatory measures such as reducing the number of people entering, limiting movement, and careful forward planning.
Costs and Partial Victory
While the claimants did not win on all arguments—the judge rejected claims that the company must specify the first day of access and criticised Ms Barstow for recycling notices without reading them—they achieved a significant outcome. Mr Justice Kimblin ordered Green GEN Cymru to pay 60% of the claimants' costs, amounting to £21,000. He noted: 'The Claimants have brought about a change in the Defendant’s procedures, practices and approach as a result of their claim. In that sense, the balance of success is evidently in their favour.'
Lawyer's Response
Mary Smith, a lawyer at New South Law representing the farmers, hailed the judgment: 'Your home is your sanctuary. That sanctuary has been disrupted over and over again by an energy company that has shown minimal regard for our clients' welfare, the impact on their businesses and family life, and the safety of their livestock.' She added: 'It should not have taken a high court case brought by a community group and charity on behalf of hundreds of landowners and occupiers to make sure developers comply with the law.'
Wider Implications
The judge emphasised that the scale of the project did not excuse the company from its statutory obligations: 'The balance of rights which is struck by the statutory scheme does not change with the scale of project. Those affected have the same benefit of notice and entry only at reasonable times whether the proposed scheme is large or small.' The ruling calls into question the legality of previous summonses against farmers who refused access, as twenty people had been taken to court last year facing potential costs of tens of thousands of pounds.
