On 19^th September 2025, the Scottish Government launched a consultation on compulsory purchase reform in Scotland, and it closed three months later. The stated aim was to make the compulsory purchase system simpler, more streamlined, and fairer for all, to help deliver development and new homes. It also included questions on the possible benefits of introducing compulsory sale orders and compulsory lease orders.

But it went beyond facilitating the building of new homes. As it made clear, Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) “can enable the delivery of development and infrastructure projects needed to deliver economic growth and reach net zero.” And this worries campaigners against wind farms and related developments, who feel the system is already stacked against local communities opposed to such developments. Of concern is the suggestion in the consultation paper that “many public bodies rarely, if ever, make use of their CPO powers…We want to change that…The Scottish Government wants compulsory purchase to fulfil its potential as a tool for delivering projects in the public interest – one that encourages authorities to make positive and proactive use of their powers, including in partnership with third parties….”

The review also sought to be fairer for all parties and to ensure that it “compensates claimants fairly and timeously.” So far so good. However, what many people probably don’t appreciate is that “public bodies” able to avail themselves of CPO powers may extend even to foreign energy companies involved in renewable energy projects. Do we really want such companies to be able to exercise such sweeping powers?

In one bizarre recent example (which I wrote about here, though it’s worth briefly reprising the story), Equinor (the Norwegian state-owned oil and gas company now specialising in constructing wind farms, especially in the UK and its offshore waters) asked for a KC’s opinion regarding their ability to utilise CPO powers – not to acquire land to construct a wind farm, or even in connection with associated infrastructure. Instead, what Equinor had its eye on was some farm land in south west Scotland which it wished to acquire as part of a scheme to compensate for the damage its planned Sheringham Shoal and Dudgeon Offshore Wind Farm Extension Projects would cause to sandwich tern populations hundreds of miles away off the east coast of England.

Attempts to negotiate terms for land in Scotland to be used for sandwich tern compensation measures having failed to come to fruition, an email was sent by Equinor to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) to the effect that “we would like to explore CPO powers as an alternative route to assure the Planning Inspectorate that another option for securing the necessary compensation land is, in principle, available to the projects should this be required.” The email went on to say “we would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with the ECU and whether a CPO could be promoted jointly…”

Happily, the ECU declined to get involved with this idea, and this is when a KC’s opinion was sought by Equinor. It produced the desired result, namely advice to the effect that they had powers under section 10 of and Schedule 3 to the Electricity Act 1989 compulsorily to purchase land for the purposes of wildlife compensation for an offshore wind farm 400 miles away off the coast of England. Specifically, the advice regarding the distance from the development was:

“That the land which is being contemplated is remote from the projects does not affect the principle of application of the provision. The answer would be no different if it were immediately adjacent. The required connection is not physical but functional.”

In essence, if the KC’s opinion is correct, then (as I wrote at the time) a developer building a wind farm off the Kent coast could exercise compulsory purchase powers to acquire land on Unst or Yell in Shetland, or perhaps on St Kilda. That does seem absurd, especially as in this case they could have used powers normally reserved to the state, to force the acquisition of a piece of land that is an integral part of a small farm, the loss of which might render the farm unviable. This despite the fact that there is no guarantee that the mitigation measures will succeed. The KC did acknowledge that he had not been able to find any case law directly on point, that the issue has not previously been litigated, and that there is an argument against his interpretation. Still, his opinion was to the effect that his clients had the necessary compulsory purchase powers, and armed with that, they could now feel free to throw their weight around.

And in consequence, in one of many lengthy documents associated with this story (the “Applicant’s Responses to the Examining Authority’s Second Written Questions” in May 2023, which runs to 203 pages), Equinor made it clear that although they preferred to acquire by compensation the land to be used for compensation measures, they would use CPO powers if necessary. Happily, in the end an adjacent landowner appears to have come to terms with Equinor, so the threat of a foreign company compulsorily purchasing farm-critical land for a speculative compensation venture appears to have receded.

Last month the Scottish Government published the results of the consultation. Only 107 responses were received. Of these, eight were from the energy sector. As the Scottish government acknowledged:

…respondents represent a small, self-selected sample of the population. The results therefore cannot be taken as representing the views of the general population or of particular sectors as a whole….

That rather leaves me wondering whether the costs of such consultation exercises are justified, especially since “[m]any respondents did not answer all the questions. Most questions received between 50 and 65 responses.” Cynics might wonder if the purpose of the exercise is to enable those who stand to benefit from extended CPO powers to be able to lobby effectively for what they want, behind the smokescreen of a “public consultation”.

Of some concern, given the story about Equinor’s attempts to use (some might say abuse) CPO powers is this summary of responses to one specific question:

Several energy provider respondents pointed to issues with the Electricity Act 1989, especially the lack of temporary possession powers for electricity generation. A number of these also suggested that CPO powers should extend to all those involved in electricity generation not just licence holders, and for the ability to compulsorily purchase other acquiring authorities’ land.

In addition:

Some responses from energy providers offered detailed, sector-specific comments describing how temporary possession is needed for oversail (large equipment needing to pass over land on [sic] route to installation), underground cable works, access corridors and construction in general, noting the technical challenges they face such as servitude limitation when the developer leases the land instead of owning it.

This is obviously an issue of importance to wind farm developers. In answer to this question: “Should compensation for land acquired compulsorily continue to be based on an assessment of its market value (disregarding increases/decreases attributable to the CPO scheme)?” we learn that “Energy companies suggested there was a need for a different basis of compensation, related to actual impact, for temporary possession required for the transport of wind turbine parts (“oversail and pinch points”).”

And in answer to this question:

Should loss payments be extended to other non-residential interests displaced as a result of compulsory purchase?

we learn that “[o]pposition to this proposal came from some local authority and energy respondents.” Self-selecting respondents, and perhaps self-serving too.

As for “Do you have any comments on the draft BRIA [Business & Regulatory Impact Assessment] provided in the Annex?” some of the responses perhaps inevitably talked of “the need to include consideration of net zero and energy infrastructure policy”.

The story doesn’t end there, of course. We now wait to see how the Scottish Government will respond to the consultation exercise. Of interest is the fact that the lead Minister dealing with the current CPO Consultation is Public Finance Minister Hannah Mary Goodlad. And it just so happens that one of her previous employers was Equinor. More specifically, most of her career was spent there (or with its precursor, Statoil), from 2014 (when she was aged 23 or 24) until her election as an MSP.

This might suggest that there is a potential conflict of interest – or at least the perception of a conflict of interest in drawing up reforms in an area such as this. CPO reforms will inevitably involve facilitating legislation for the needs of renewable energy companies and their associated infrastructure. How can Scottish residents and landowners rest assured that their concerns will be listened to fairly, and reforms will not show a bias towards the overweaning demands of Net Zero and of the greed of large renewable energy businesses, many – perhaps most – of which are based outside Scotland?

Postscript

I thought Hell would freeze over before the day came when I found any common ground with DeSmog (a self-confessed “global climate investigations outlet that since its founding in 2006 has published agenda-setting journalism and research on the people, companies and organizations blocking action to protect climate and nature”). However, it seems that while I have no personal concerns regarding Ms Goodlad’s integrity and ability (my only issue being with regard to the need for the process to be seen to be impartial), DeSmog’s sole concern with regard to her having a role within the SNP seems to be because Equinor has fossil fuel interests. While some of us worry about Equinor’s trashing of the environment in and around the UK in pursuit of ever-larger wind farms, DeSmog is concerned that “that Equinor’s latest UK education deal is aimed at quelling opposition to North Sea drilling.”

It’s a funny old world.