Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Ors
[2023] EWHC 2842 (Admin)
Lullington Solar Park Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor
16 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 295 (Admin)
High Court
A company wanted to build a large solar farm but was refused permission because it would destroy good farmland. They appealed, but the appeal was rejected because the company hadn't properly checked if there were better locations to build the farm. The court agreed with the rejection, saying the decision-maker had not acted unreasonably.
Key Facts
- •Lullington Solar Park Ltd applied for planning permission for a 49.9MW solar farm.
- •The application was refused by South Derbyshire District Council due to the loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land.
- •Lullington Solar Park Ltd appealed the decision, which was dismissed by a planning inspector.
- •The claimant challenged the inspector's decision on two grounds: irrationality in assessing site selection and flawed approach to another solar farm proposal (Oaklands Farm).
- •The main issue was the inspector's assessment of the availability of alternative sites with less valuable agricultural land.
Legal Principles
Expertise of planning inspectors should be respected.
Hopkins Homes Ltd v Secretary of State [2017] 1 WLR 1865
Decision letters should be read benevolently and as a whole.
St Modwen Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2018] PTSR 746
Courts will not interfere with planning judgment unless irrational or perverse.
Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759
The availability of alternative sites is a material consideration depending on the circumstances.
R (Mount Cook Land Limited) v Westminster City Council [2017] PTSR 116 and R (Save Stonehenge World Heritage Site Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport [2021] EWHC 2161 (Admin)
Outcomes
The challenge failed on both grounds.
The court found no inconsistency or irrationality in the inspector's assessment. The inspector's decision was a planning judgment within his purview and not subject to court interference unless irrational or perverse. The court accepted that even if errors were made, the outcome would likely have been the same.
Similar Cases
Ian Galloway, R (on the application of) v Durham County Council
[2024] EWHC 367 (Admin)
Robert Hunter v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1068 (Admin)
Low Carbon Solar Park 6 Limited, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up Housing and Communities & Anor
[2024] EWHC 770 (Admin)
Timothy James House & Anor v Waverley Borough Council & Anor
[2023] EWHC 3011 (Admin)