Lynn Ross v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

Lynn Ross v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

The Inspector correctly interpreted EN-3 and footnote 92, finding that overplanting for purposes beyond module degradation is not inconsistent with policy, provided impacts are assessed and justified. The Inspector had sufficient information to assess the proposal on a worst-case basis, properly considered planning balance, and addressed all principal controversial issues. The EIA screening opinion was rationally open to its author. The claim fails on all grounds.

Parties
Claimant: Lynn Ross; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: Renewable Energy Systems LTD
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of National Policy Statement EN 3, Overplanting in Solar Farms, Environmental Impact Assessment, Planning Balance, Renewable Energy Infrastructure, Judicial Review Standards
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Interpretation of National Policy Statement EN 3 Overplanting in Solar Farms Environmental Impact Assessment Planning Balance Renewable Energy Infrastructure +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lynn Ross

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

Renewable Energy Systems LTD

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of EN-3 and footnote 92 regarding overplanting
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector's application of EN-3 was flawed
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to address all issues raised

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector correctly interpreted EN-3 and footnote 92, finding that overplanting for purposes beyond module degradation is not inconsistent with policy, provided impacts are assessed and justified. The Inspector had sufficient information to assess the proposal on a worst-case basis, properly considered planning balance, and addressed all principal controversial issues. The EIA screening opinion was rationally open to its author. The claim fails on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; planning permission for Longhedge Solar Farm upheld
  • Export capacity limited to 49.9mwAC by condition