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

In a statutory planning challenge, the court must read an inspector’s decision fairly and as a whole. It should not substitute its own planning judgment or subject the decision to hypercritical scrutiny. An amendment may be considered on appeal where it is not substantially different from the proposal originally applied for and affected persons have had a fair opportunity to respond. Consultation need not follow the statutory procedure for a planning application, but fairness may require consultation and material prejudice must be shown. Paragraph 174(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework requires the intrinsic character and beauty of ordinary countryside to be recognised with some protective response, although valued landscapes receive a higher level of protection. Practice guidance on solar farms does not impose a mandatory sequential search for alternative sites.

The claimant, a residents’ group, brought a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 challenging an inspector’s decision allowing planning permission for a large solar farm and associated battery storage in Hampshire.

The challenge alleged errors concerning amendments made to the scheme during the appeal, consultation, case management, highway access, landscape policy, battery storage and alternative sites. The claimant argued that the revised scheme was substantially different, that consultation was unfair, and that the inspector failed to understand or adequately explain the relevant planning issues.

1. Outcome. The claim under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was dismissed.
2. Amendments. The Wheatcroft test asks whether the amended development is substantially different or is, in substance, not that originally applied for, with consultation and prejudice being important considerations. The inspector was entitled to find that reducing panels, improving screening and replacing the Forest School with a nature area were minor modifications. Consultation had occurred, and the claimant was not prejudiced. The refinement in R (Holborn Studios Ltd) v Hackney LBC was distinguishable on the facts and would not have altered the result.
3. Consultation and inquiry procedure. There is no statutory obligation to apply the planning-application publicity requirements to amendments proposed during an appeal. Common-law fairness may nevertheless require consultation. The consultation here gave the public a fair opportunity to respond, and the claimant fully participated in the inquiry. The inspector was entitled to consider both versions of the scheme before deciding which should form the basis of permission.
4. Reasons and enquiries. Decision letters require intelligible and adequate reasons on the principal important controversial issues, but not reasons for reasons. The inspector was entitled to rely on the professional highway officers’ assessment and his site visit. The Tameside duty requires reasonable steps to obtain relevant information, but the intensity of inquiry is for the decision-maker unless no reasonable decision-maker could regard the information as sufficient.
5. Landscape and planning policy. Paragraph 174 of the Framework distinguishes valued landscapes, which are to be protected and enhanced, from other countryside, whose intrinsic character and beauty must be recognised. The inspector correctly applied that distinction, assessed the landscape and its harm, and weighed the harm against the renewable-energy and biodiversity benefits.
6. Alternative sites. The Planning Practice Guidance is practice guidance, not a binding code. It does not require a sequential test for solar-farm site selection. The inspector was entitled to consider grid connection, agricultural land, temporary use, mitigation and biodiversity, and to reject the challenge based on the absence of a sequential search.