Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2842 (Admin)
Chala Alice Fiske, R (on the application of) v Test Valley Borough Council
15 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1495
Court of Appeal
A council allowed building of a power station to connect a solar farm to the grid, even though it conflicted with earlier plans for the farm. A resident sued, saying the council should have noticed the conflict. The court said the council didn't have to predict problems, only judge the new power station on its own merits. The resident lost.
Key Facts
- •Test Valley Borough Council granted planning permission (the 2021 permission) for a 132kV substation to connect a solar park to the national grid.
- •This was incompatible with a previous permission (the 2017 permission) for the solar park itself.
- •Chala Fiske challenged the 2021 permission through judicial review.
- •The main issue was whether the council erred in law by not considering the incompatibility as an "obviously material" consideration.
Legal Principles
A material consideration in planning decisions is one that serves a planning purpose, relating to the character of land use.
Westminster City Council v Great Portland Estates Plc [1985] A.C. 661
A decision-maker only errs in law by failing to have regard to a consideration if a legal principle compels it (not merely empowers it).
R. (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and another) v North Yorkshire County Council [2020] UKSC 3
The test for whether a consideration is "so obviously material" is the Wednesbury irrationality test.
R. (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd.) v Heathrow Airport Ltd. [2020] UKSC 52
A planning authority is not obligated to relate one planning application or permission to another to see if they are contradictory; each application should be considered on its own merits.
Pilkington v Secretary of State for the Environment [1973] 1 W.L.R. 1527
A planning permission is not authorized if compliance becomes physically impossible due to prior development.
Hillside Parks Ltd. v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30
A planning officer's report to committee must be read fairly and as a whole.
Mansell v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The council's decision was lawful. The incompatibility of the permissions was not an "obviously material" consideration requiring mandatory consideration. The council was not obligated to speculate on the developer's future actions or potential breaches of planning control.
Similar Cases
Lullington Solar Park Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 295 (Admin)
Ian Galloway, R (on the application of) v Durham County Council
[2024] EWHC 367 (Admin)
Durham County Council & Anor v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2023] EWHC 1394 (Admin)
Barbara Laing, R (on the application of) v The Cornwall Council
[2024] EWHC 120 (Admin)