One of Lark Energy’s existing solar farms in Whittlesey, near Peterborough
Why is Lark Energy applying for a judicial review of Eric Pickles? Neil Osborn, senior director at DLP Planning Consultants, explains the importance of the case for the UK’s renewable future
Communities secretary Eric Pickles decided last November to block construction of part of a solar park in Ellough, Suffolk. Although large solar farms have been increasingly criticised in recent months due to the use of agricultural land and the landscape impact, the reasons for Mr Pickles’ decision have caused some bemusement in the industry.
The Ellough application was for a 24 megawatt solar farm, covering 46 hectares, on land adjacent to Ellough Airfield, near Beccles. Waverney District Council subsequently gave planning consent in April last year for Lark Energy to build a 14.1MW solar farm on 28.6 hectares of land on the northern part of the site. The Ellough application was only an extension of these plans.
Mr Pickles overruled his own planning inspector’s recommendation in December to block the extension of the permitted scheme, citing two key reasons. First, ‘the limited harm caused by the appeal scheme is greater than the very limited harm that would be caused by the permitted scheme’, and second, ‘the increase in the amount of renewable energy generated by the appeal scheme does not outweigh the additional harm caused to the character and appearance of the area.’
Neil Pope, the inspector appointed by the communities secretary, had conducted a thorough public inquiry and site investigation into the proposed development, and concluded: ‘The harm to the character of this part of the district would be no greater than that which has already been accepted by the council when it approved a 14.1MW solar farm on this part of the site in April 2013.’ The proposal would not significantly harm the landscape character of this part of the district and there would be no conflict with the strategic objectives of the Saints Plateau East Landscape Character Area, a locally designated area of landscape importance.
Eric Pickle’s decision to overrule his own inspector does have an important implication which could impact on all other solar applications. The implication is that ‘limited harm’ arising from a solar farm may outweigh the importance of renewable energy, notwithstanding the importance which government has emphasised that it places on reducing our carbon footprint and helping to ensure that the country is less depended on imported fossil fuels.
The Daily Telegraph placed a different interpretation of the decision, citing ‘fierce local opposition’ to the plan, and the Secretary of State’s intervention being ‘welcomed by local groups which have complained that their attempts to stop wind and solar farms being built were made difficult by the much greater resources of the developers’. But in fact there was only minimal opposition to this particular project, with just six letters of objection received by the council for the appealed scheme and none for the consented scheme.
Lark Energy, which has developed numerous solar farms around the UK, including the UK’s largest, which is at Wymeswold in Leicestershire, has lodged an application for a judicial review of Mr Pickles’ decision, on the grounds that he made a decision which is contrary to the principles enshrined in national planning law and the national planning policy framework. The application will be heard on 10-11 April.
The implication for all other solar farm developments is clear. If this Judicial Review is unsuccessful even the lowest level of perceived harm to the landscape in a future development will result in a refusal as a council will be confident that the Secretary of State would uphold that view.
Eric Pickles’ position on this goes against government policy of encouraging the development of renewable energy, and is a further demonstration of the conflict between CLG and the Department for Energy and Climate Change.
CORRECTION: This opinion piece was originally credited to Andrew Newcombe QC in error, due to a misunderstanding.
