Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2842 (Admin)
Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor
5 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 770 (Admin)
High Court
A company wanted to build a solar park but didn't do enough checks for historical stuff beforehand. A government inspector rejected their plan. The company sued, saying it was unfair they couldn't reply to late complaints. The judge said the company had enough chances and should've done the historical checks first, so the inspector's decision was fair.
Key Facts
- •Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Limited challenged the refusal of planning permission for a solar park.
- •The challenge was based on procedural unfairness, alleging the inspector unfairly disregarded a late rebuttal statement.
- •The application was made directly to the Secretary of State under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
- •The inspector refused to consider the claimant's rebuttal statement submitted after the representation period.
- •The key issue concerned the lack of archaeological evaluation before the determination of the application, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.
Legal Principles
Fairness in administrative decision-making requires considering the context of the decision and the relevant statute.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Doody [1994] 1 AC 531
Fairness is a question for the court, and its standards may change with time.
R (Medway Council) v Secretary of State for Transport, Environment and the Regions [2002] EWHC 2516 (Admin)
In planning appeals, fairness may require considering representations outside the set time period to avoid unfairness.
R (Ashley) v SSCLG [2012] EWCA Civ 559
Procedural unfairness materially prejudicing a party might justify quashing an inspector's decision. Inspectors must give parties a reasonable opportunity to deal with new issues.
Hopkins Developments Ltd v SSCLG [2014] EWCA Civ 470
To uphold a decision, the respondent must show the decision-maker would have reached the same conclusion on valid grounds.
Simplex (GE) Holdings Ltd v Environment Secretary [2017] PTSR 1041; SSCLG v South Gloucestershire Council [2016] EWCA Civ 74
National Planning Policy Framework requires identifying the significance of heritage assets before assessing mitigation.
National Planning Policy Framework, sections 194, 200-203
Outcomes
The claim failed.
The inspector's refusal to consider the late rebuttal statement did not amount to procedural unfairness. The claimant had an adequate opportunity to respond to the key objection regarding the lack of archaeological evaluation before the end of the representation period. The claimant's approach to mitigation was considered flawed, as it prioritized mitigation over the necessary assessment of heritage asset significance.
Similar Cases
Lullington Solar Park Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 295 (Admin)
Bedford Park Developments v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2337 (Admin)
Jonathan Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Ashford Borough Council
[2023] EWHC 317 (Admin)
Sarah Moakes v Canterbury City Council
[2024] EWHC 1272 (Admin)