Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors

15 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2842 (Admin)
High Court
A group of residents challenged a decision to build a solar farm. The judge looked at whether changes made to the plan were big enough to matter, whether everyone got a fair chance to comment, and whether the decision-maker considered everything properly. The judge decided the changes were small, the comments were heard, and the decision-maker considered everything they should have. So, the judge decided against the residents and the solar farm was allowed to go ahead.

Key Facts

  • •Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group challenged the grant of planning permission for a solar farm.
  • •The challenge concerned amendments made to the original scheme (Revised Scheme) during the appeal process.
  • •Key issues included the substantiality of the amendments, procedural fairness of the consultation, and consideration of alternative sites.
  • •The Inspector allowed the appeal and granted planning permission.
  • •The Claimant argued that the Inspector erred in law on several grounds.

Legal Principles

Statutory review under section 288 TCPA 1990: A person aggrieved may apply to quash a decision on grounds that it is not within the powers of the Act or relevant requirements have not been complied with, causing substantial prejudice.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 288

Wheatcroft Principles: The test for amending a planning application during appeal is whether the changes are substantial, such that those who should have been consulted were deprived of that opportunity.

Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1982) 43 P & CR 233

Procedural fairness in consultation: Consultation must provide a fair opportunity for those consulted to adequately address the issue, and material prejudice must be shown for a claim to succeed.

R (Law Society) v Lord Chancellor [2019] 1 WLR 1649; R (Keep the Horton General) v Oxfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group [2019] EWCA Civ 646

Duty to give reasons: Reasons must be intelligible and adequate, enabling understanding of the decision and conclusions on principal controversial issues. A reasons challenge succeeds only if substantial prejudice is shown.

South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 1953

Tameside duty: Decision-makers must take reasonable steps to acquaint themselves with relevant material. Intervention is only warranted if no reasonable decision-maker could have made the decision with the information available.

Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside MBC [1977] AC 1014; R (Campaign Against Arms Trade) v Secretary of State for International Trade [2019] 1 WLR 5765

Consideration of alternative sites: Alternative sites are relevant only in exceptional circumstances, particularly where a proposed development has significant adverse effects and its need outweighs the planning disadvantages.

Trusthouse Forte Hotels Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1986) 53 P & CR 293; R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2022] PTSR 74

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is guidance only, not binding policy.

Solo Retail Limited v Torridge District Council [2019] EWHC 489 (Admin); R (White Waltham Airfield Limited) v Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead [2021] EWHC 3408 (Admin)

Outcomes

Claim dismissed.

The court found the Inspector's decision to be lawful. The amendments were deemed minor and the consultation, though not perfect, provided a fair opportunity to address concerns. The Inspector adequately considered all material considerations, including landscape impact, heritage assets, and alternative sites.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.