The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) has overturned a refusal for British independent energy producer Enviromena’s 40MW Fillongley Solar Farm.
North Warwickshire Borough Council initially rejected the solar power plant and objections were raised by Fillongley Parish Council, which diverted community funds to oppose the project.
North Warwickshire Borough Council, led by a Conservative minority government, refused the project on the grounds that it would be an inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would cause landscape and visual damage.
Enviromena argued – and PINS agreed – that the 150 hectare site should be considered ‘Gray Belt’ land. When the project was initially denied in July last yearMark Harding, Enviromena’s European development director, said the company saw “no valid grounds” for the rejection.
The Green Belt in Great Britain is intended, among other things, to prevent urban expansion and the connecting of individual villages through construction. Due to the area Enviromena chose for the solar power plant, PINs concluded that it did not contribute to any of these issues. Appeal documents note that “by the time the investigation concluded, the major parties were in broad agreement.”
Commenting on the PINS decision, Harding said: “The long-standing dispute over ‘Grey Belt’ status has incurred unnecessary time and expense for all parties, including the council and its ratepayers. We are pleased that the evidence has now been accepted.”
The company said it expects the decision to influence other renewable energy proposals considering the status and appropriate use of such land.
It is common for a solar PV installation that is refused by a local planning authority (LPA) to be approved if appealed. This gives rise to the argument that developers are losing or wasting costs in the approval process, as LPA refusals are often based not on the merits of projects, but on broader anti-solar rhetoric.
It is notable that in this case, despite Enviromena highlighting the costs associated with the appeal process, PINS has decided not to award costs to North Warwickshire Borough Council.
In cases where it is judged that the refusal is the result of unreasonable behavior by a party, which causes the appellant to incur unnecessary or wasted costs in the appeal procedure, PINS may award the costs to the municipality.
In this case, the designation of the area to be developed as ‘Gray Belt’ was not considered so obvious that the municipality’s refusal was in bad faith.
There have been planning guidelines in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) since the initial planning was submitted updated to be more flexible towards development in the Green Beltbut PINS said that at the time of North Warwickshire Borough Council’s refusal it was still recommending that Green Belt applications be refused unless special circumstances can be demonstrated.
