Lark Energy Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities And Local Government & Anor
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- Mr Justice Lindblom
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Environmental Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
Lark Energy Limited challenged the Secretary of State's dismissal of its appeal against the refusal of planning permission for a 30MW solar farm. The court found that the Secretary of State erred by not clearly reconciling the proposed development's compliance with Policy DM03 and its conflict with Policy DM27 when making his decision. The case was remitted to the Secretary of State for redetermination.
Judgment
Mr Justice Lindblom:
Introduction
Proposals for the production of renewable energy on sites in the countryside can be controversial. This case is about such a proposal, a scheme for a solar farm at Ellough Airfield, near Beccles in Suffolk.
By an application under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 the claimant, Lark Energy Limited (“Lark Energy”), challenges the decision of the first defendant, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (“the Secretary of State”), on 16 October 2013, to dismiss its appeal against the refusal by the second defendant, Waveney District Council (“the Council”), of its application for planning permission for the installation of a 30MW solar farm – later reduced to 24MW – on a site of about 46 hectares at the airfield. It had sought a temporary permission, for a period of 25 years. The appeal was recovered by the Secretary of State because it involved a proposal of major significance for the delivery of the Government’s climate change programme and energy policies. In April 2013 the Council granted planning permission for a 14.1MW solar farm on about 29 hectares in the northern part of the same site. An inquiry into Lark Energy’s appeal was held by the Secretary of State’s inspector, Mr Neil Pope, in June 2013. In his report, dated 8 July 2013, the inspector recommended that the appeal be allowed. But that recommendation was rejected by the Secretary of State in his decision letter.
The issues
There are four issues:
whether the Secretary of State erred in law in the way he dealt with the permitted scheme, which he regarded as a fallback position for Lark Energy, and thus failed to consider the proposal on its own merits (ground 1 of the application);
whether the Secretary of State failed to fulfil his duty, under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (“ the 2004 Act ”), to make his decision on Lark Energy’s proposal in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise, and whether in this respect the decision was perverse (ground 2);
whether the Secretary of State failed to consider the appeal scheme in accordance with government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (“the NPPF”), in particular paragraph 14 (ground 3); and
whether the Secretary of State exaggerated the limited harm the development would cause to the character and appearance of the area, by giving weight to the fact that objections on