Game changing planning decision for developers of renewables

The proposed development had been refused by the Council on the grounds that: 1) harm to the Green Belt had not been outweighed by very special circumstances; and 2) the proposal would cause unacceptable and adverse effects on the natural environment.

The Inspector found conversely, among other things, that the public benefits of the proposal were of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt (and other harms). These benefits attracted substantial weight and constituted very special circumstances justifying the development.

Green Belt development

National planning policy has established the principle that the Green Belt should be protected (Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’)). Most types of development (including solar farms) are considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt and cause harm which carries substantial weight in planning decisions. Such development should not be carried out unless there are very special circumstances – i.e. benefits that outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

The Planning Inspector found that the proposed development would result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. This was because of existing boundary screening; the relatively modest mass and footprint of the development; and the fact that the scheme would be in place for 40 years. This was weighed against the fact that it would introduce substantial development into the site currently used as farmland. The Inspector found that the proposal could result in encroachment and would not contribute to the reuse of urban land – two key purposes of the Green Belt.

Landscape and visual impact

The scheme was also found to result in a moderate adverse impact on the landscape character of the area. The site already consisted of several relatively substantial man-made interventions, including overhead pylons and major roads. Further, the scheme would retain and enhance existing field boundaries and leave most wooded areas untouched, and so would be relatively non-invasive. However, the development would still alter the landscape.

It was also found that most views of the proposal would be ‘minor’ or ‘negligible’ by year 10. There would be some ‘major adverse’ visual impacts from the public right of way initially, but these would be diminished once landscape screening was established. The Inspector found that the proposal would result in moderate harm which was attributed moderate weight in the planning balance.

Other considerations

The Inspector also considered several other material planning considerations including:

1. National Policy Statements (NPS) for the delivery of major infrastructure. Draft NPS EN-3 states that “solar farms are one of the most established renewable energy technologies…and the cheapest form of electricity generation”. NPSs also recognise that significant large and small scale energy infrastructure is required to meet the Government’s climate objectives.
2. The fact that the UK Government has declared a climate emergency and set a statutory target of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.
3. Planning Practice Guidance on renewable and low carbon energy states that “there are no hard and fast rules about how suitable areas for renewable energy should be identified…local planning authorities will need to ensure they take into account the requirements of the technology and critically, the potential impacts on the local environment”.
4. The NPPF confirms that developers should not need to demonstrate a need for low-carbon or renewable energy projects and authorities should recognize that even small-scale projects can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Planning balance

The Inspector concluded that the appeal scheme would result in moderate harm to the Green Belt, which was afforded substantial weight, and moderate harm to the landscape character and visually.

On the other hand, the Inspector noted that the scheme would deliver a renewable energy facility that could create up to 49.9MW of power, providing power for around 16,581 households and resulting in a carbon dioxide displacement of around 11,210 tonnes per annum. He found that the benefits of renewable energy raised substantial benefits in favour of the proposal.

The scheme was relatively unobtrusive and there were already man-made interventions in the surrounding landscape. The Inspector also noted that the developer had taken a rational approach to site selection by selecting a site where they could connect to the adjacent electricity pylons.

As such the public benefits of the proposal were found to be significant enough to outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt (and other harms). The benefits attracted very substantial weight and amounted to very special circumstances which justified granting planning permission.

What does this case mean?

This is a huge decision. Particularly with a rise of development of renewables projects. The Government is under material pressure to make development of critical resources easier.

This decision should not be taken as support for blanket approval of permission for solar farms in the Green Belt. The NPPF establishes a very clear principle that the Green Belt needs to be protected and most development will only be permissible where there are very special circumstances. The Inspector was very clear that, although increased production of energy from renewable sources was a benefit to be taken into account, this did not confer automatic approval of solar farm schemes in the Green Belt. Each proposal must be considered on its facts taking into account a broad range of issue and always having in mind the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

However, the Inspector’s focus on the benefits of renewable energy and the current national policies in favour of renewable energy demonstrates just how important such considerations are when undertaking the planning balance. Whilst developers should not select sites in the Green Belt and assume that the benefits of renewable energy will outweigh harm, they can find comfort in the fact that such benefits will, or should, be very carefully considered by the decision maker and will weigh heavily in the development’s favour. Developers should still ensure that they pick their sites carefully, also taking into account practical issues such as electricity supply, and should expect to have to justify their site selection.

Sharpe Pritchard has significant experience advising clients in solar development. In addition to planning and land arrangements we have extensive electricity industry and experience in delivering routes to market and advising our clients on regulatory issues.

Steve Gummer is a Partner and Emily Knowles is a Senior Associate at Sharpe Pritchard LLP.

For further insight and resources on local government legal issues from Sharpe Pritchard, please visit the SharpeEdge page by clicking on the banner below.

This article is for general awareness only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. The law may have changed since this page was first published. If you would like further advice and assistance in relation to any issue raised in this article, please contact us by telephone or email enquiries@sharpepritchard.co.uk