Why might a site you ruled out deserve a second look?
Most developers have at least one site they still remember. The land worked. The location worked. The planning potential looked promising. The commercial appraisal was close enough to keep the conversation alive.
Then the utilities review landed. The electricity connection needed reinforcement. The programme looked uncertain. The upfront cost was too high. The project was quietly moved into the not now folder.
That may have been the right decision at the time. But it may not be the right decision today.
Since April 2023, the way many electricity distribution connection charges are calculated has changed. The change came from Ofgem's Access and Forward-Looking Charges Significant Code Review, usually shortened to Access SCR. In simple terms, Ofgem changed the rules so that many wider electricity network reinforcement costs are no longer charged directly to the customer connecting to the network. Ofgem's final decision said the reforms were intended to reduce the overall connection charge for those connecting to the distribution network, including removing the contribution to wider network reinforcement for demand connections, while keeping protections for the most expensive projects.
That sounds technical, but the commercial point is simple: a site that looked too expensive to connect a few years ago may now deserve a second look.
Buro Happold made this point clearly when discussing the Access SCR changes, noting that developments previously considered uneconomic because of high upfront reinforcement costs could potentially go ahead. This does not mean every old site is suddenly viable. It does not mean electricity connections are now cheap. And it definitely does not remove the need for good utility advice. But it does mean that old assumptions may now be out of date.
What is a worked example of how Access SCR changes the maths?
Imagine a housebuilder looked at a residential site in 2021. The site needed around 1MVA of electricity capacity. That is 1,000kVA.
At the time, the local electricity network needed reinforcement to support the development. The connection offer included a major contribution towards those reinforcement works. The number was big enough to damage the land appraisal, delay the programme and create too much uncertainty. So the developer walked away.
Now look at that same site under the post-April 2023 charging rules. Ofgem introduced a new demand High Cost Cap for wider reinforcement costs. The level was set at £1,720 per kVA, as set out in Ofgem's demand HCC methodology. For a 1,000kVA development, that creates a threshold of approximately £1.72 million before the connecting customer would normally be exposed to wider reinforcement costs above that cap.
National Grid Electricity Distribution explains the same point in more practical terms: demand connection applications are not required to contribute to reinforcement works unless they trigger the demand High Cost Project Threshold of £1,720/kVA or are treated as speculative development. National Grid also makes clear that customers still pay for the assets needed to provide their new connection, often called extension assets.
So, in our example, if the wider reinforcement cost was £1 million, the developer may no longer face that reinforcement charge in the same way they might have before April 2023.
If the wider reinforcement cost was £2 million, the developer may only be exposed to the amount above the threshold. On a 1,000kVA scheme, that would be roughly £280,000 above the £1.72 million cap, rather than the full £2 million reinforcement cost. Industry commentary has used a similar example, rounding a £2 million reinforcement cost and £1.7 million threshold to a developer contribution of about £300,000.
That is still a serious cost. But it is a very different conversation. A project that failed because of a seven-figure reinforcement charge may now be worth re-running through a fresh feasibility review.
Why have electricity connection costs changed since April 2023?
The biggest reason to revisit an old site is that the rules have changed.
Before April 2023, developers could be required to contribute towards wider reinforcement of the electricity distribution network. The explanatory memorandum to the Electricity Connection Charges Amendment Regulations 2022 confirms that the reforms were introduced so that people connecting to the network would have reduced liability for reinforcement costs from 1 April 2023.
For developers, this matters because utility costs often sit right at the point where a marginal site either works or does not. A lower upfront connection cost can affect land value, phasing, funding, planning strategy and the level of risk a developer is willing to accept.
Ofgem's Access SCR decision specifically refers to the electrification of heat and transport as part of the wider reason for changing how network access and charging works. The charging framework was updated for a grid that is under more pressure from low-carbon technologies, not the same assumptions many older feasibility reviews were built on.
Why is network capacity not a fixed snapshot?
A utility assessment is a snapshot in time. The capacity position from 2020, 2021 or 2022 may not reflect the network position today.
Networks are reinforced. Other developments are delayed or cancelled. Local demand changes. New constraints appear. Old constraints are resolved.
The opposite can also happen. A site that looked straightforward a few years ago may now be more difficult because of increased demand from EV charging, heat pumps, commercial electrification or nearby development.
That is why an old electricity budget estimate or feasibility note should not be treated as permanent evidence. It was useful at the time. It may not be reliable now.
Why might your development requirements have changed too?
It is not only the network that changes. The development brief changes as well.
Housebuilders and developers are now dealing with higher expectations around EV charging, low-carbon heating, sustainability targets and future electrical demand. A site assessed several years ago may have been based on different assumptions.
Perhaps the original appraisal allowed for gas-led heating. Perhaps EV charging provision was lighter. Perhaps the load estimate was based on a previous design.
If the development has changed, the utility strategy needs to change with it. Revisiting a site is not only about re-checking the network. It is about checking whether your current brief still fits the connection options available.
Why are connection options more flexible than they used to be?
The best answer is not always a single traditional connection offer.
Ofgem's Access SCR reforms also addressed access rights, including non-firm or curtailable connections for larger users. Ofgem's decision included a standardised non-firm access option for larger network users, with clearer curtailment limits and end dates.
National Grid Electricity Distribution explains that where a DNO or IDNO cannot provide the full capacity requested without reinforcement, it may issue an offer for a curtailable connection.
For a developer, this does not mean flexible connections are always the answer. They need proper technical and commercial review. But it does mean a previous too expensive or too slow connection position may no longer be the only option on the table.
There may be a phased approach. There may be an alternative point of connection. There may be a way to bring forward part of the site while reinforcement catches up. That is where good utility consultants add real value.
What practical questions should developers ask before revisiting a site?
The most expensive utility problems are usually the ones found late. If a site is already under offer, planning work has started and the design team is moving, a major electricity constraint becomes a problem. If it is identified early, it becomes a decision.
Before writing an old site off permanently, or before committing fresh budget to one, teams should ask:
- Was the site rejected on pre-April 2023 reinforcement assumptions?
- What was the kVA requirement, and what wider reinforcement number sat in the old appraisal?
- Has the local network capacity position changed since the original review?
- Has the development brief changed on heating, EV charging, or electrical load?
- Could phasing, an alternative point of connection, or a curtailable offer change the programme?
- Are we treating an old feasibility note as permanent evidence?
- Do we need a proportionate early review before specialist utility input, or a full consultant-led strategy?
A developer does not need a full technical connection strategy for every site on day one. But they do need enough information to know whether the site deserves more time, more budget and specialist consultant input.
What is the real opportunity?
A site rejected in 2021 may still be a bad site. But if the reason it was rejected was electricity reinforcement cost, capacity uncertainty or connection risk, it may now deserve a second look.
The charging rules have changed. The network may have changed. The development brief may have changed. The available connection options may have changed.
For housebuilders, land promoters and developers, the opportunity is not to assume old sites are suddenly viable. The opportunity is to challenge the old assumptions.
HubbPro does not reassess old reinforcement quotes or decide which sites to revisit. It helps housebuilders establish current kVA demand, export capacity and FHS assumptions earlier, so utility consultants can test whether a parked site looks different under today's rules and development brief.
Because sometimes the best opportunity is not the new site you have just found. It is the one you stopped looking at too early.