Drayton Manor Farms Limited v Stratford-Upon-Avon District Council

Whether a renewable-energy project is an extension of an existing generating station for nationally significant infrastructure purposes is principally a functional question. The court should assess the degree of interdependence in the facilities’ electricity-generating functions. Shared ownership of land, adjacency and common access are materially less significant where the facilities have separate development histories, operators, leases, infrastructure, connections, metering, lifecycles and planning controls.

Where no statutory procedure conclusively resolves the issue, the court may determine whether the project falls within the statutory concept without undertaking a planning-merits assessment. Declaratory relief may be granted where there is a real dispute, the parties are affected, the issue has public importance, and declaration is the only effective means of resolving the uncertainty.

The claimant proposed a 32 MW solar farm and associated development under a planning permission granted in 2023. An existing solar farm at the same wider landholding had been authorised by planning permissions granted in 2015 and 2016 and had an operational capacity of 45 MW.

The planning authority’s note raised uncertainty whether the proposed development was an extension of the existing generating station. If so, the combined capacity could exceed the threshold in sections 14 and 15 of the Planning Act 2008, requiring development consent under section 31 and exposing implementation without consent to section 160 enforcement.

The central issues were whether the proposed facility was an extension or a separate generating station, and whether declaratory relief should be granted.

1. Declaration granted. The proposed solar farm was a separate generating station, not an extension of the existing solar farm. Its proposed capacity was below the threshold in section 15 of the Planning Act 2008. Development consent was therefore not required under section 31, and the development was authorised for planning purposes by the 2023 planning permission.
2. Following Durham County Council & Hartlepool Borough Council v The Secretary of State for Levelling-up, Housing and Communities, the court could determine whether the development fell within the statutory concept of an NSIP. That question involved mixed fact and law, but did not require the court to weigh planning merits. There was no alternative procedure capable of producing a definitive and binding determination for the purposes of enforcement under Part 8 of the Planning Act 2008.
3. The question whether the facilities were separate was to some degree a matter of impression. The most significant consideration was functional interdependence in generating electricity. On the evidence, there was little or no interdependence. The shared freehold landholding, adjacency and common access were of substantially less significance. Separate leasehold ownership and operation, infrastructure, electricity connections, metering, lifecycles and planning controls supported the conclusion that the facilities were distinct.
4. Applying the approach in Rolls Royce Plc v Unite the Union, the power to grant declaratory relief was discretionary. A declaration was appropriate because there was a real and genuine dispute concerning legal rights, both the claimant and the local planning authority were affected, the issue had public importance, all sides had an opportunity to address it, and declaration was the only effective means of resolving the uncertainty.