Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing And Communities & Ors [2023] EWHC 2842 (Admin) (15 November 2023)

Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing And Communities & Ors [2023] EWHC 2842 (Admin) (15 November 2023)

The Inspector lawfully exercised planning judgment in determining that the modifications to the scheme were minor and did not prejudice any party, applying the Wheatcroft Principles. The consultation process, though not perfect, was fair and provided adequate opportunity for response. The Inspector's reasons were adequate and met legal standards. No grounds of challenge succeeded.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2842 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: Bramley Solar Limited; Third Defendant: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 TCPA 1990 / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Planning Permission, Consultation Requirements, Environmental Impact Assessment, Procedural Fairness, Wheatcroft Principles
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Statutory Review Planning Permission Consultation Requirements Environmental Impact Assessment Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bramley Solar Farm Residents Group

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

Bramley Solar Limited

Second Defendant

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 TCPA 1990 / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector erred in law by considering the Revised Scheme and failed to address whether it was substantially different from the Original Scheme
  2. 2 Whether the consultation on the Revised Scheme was procedurally unfair and caused prejudice
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector failed to reach a determination before the Inquiry as to which scheme would be considered

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector lawfully exercised planning judgment in determining that the modifications to the scheme were minor and did not prejudice any party, applying the Wheatcroft Principles. The consultation process, though not perfect, was fair and provided adequate opportunity for response. The Inspector's reasons were adequate and met legal standards. No grounds of challenge succeeded.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No order to quash the Inspector's decision
  • Planning permission for the Development stands