Lullington Solar Park Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

Lullington Solar Park Ltd v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities & Anor

The inspector's decision was rational and adequately reasoned. The inspector was entitled to find the claimant's assessment not robust due to lack of soil surveys outside the appeal site and to use the Oaklands Farm proposal as an example of the assessment's deficiencies. There was no procedural unfairness or irrationality in the inspector's approach.

Parties
Claimant: Lullington Solar Park Ltd; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; Second Defendant: South Derbyshire District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Review, Planning Permission, Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, Renewable Energy Infrastructure, National Planning Policy Framework, Local Planning Policy
Planning Law Administrative Law Statutory Review Planning Permission Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land Renewable Energy Infrastructure National Planning Policy Framework Local Planning Policy

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lullington Solar Park Ltd

Claimant

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities

First Defendant

South Derbyshire District Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning inspector's approach to the assessment of alternative sites for the solar farm was irrational or inadequately reasoned
  2. 2 Whether the inspector's consideration of the Oaklands Farm proposal was procedurally unfair or factually mistaken

Ratio Decidendi

The inspector's decision was rational and adequately reasoned. The inspector was entitled to find the claimant's assessment not robust due to lack of soil surveys outside the appeal site and to use the Oaklands Farm proposal as an example of the assessment's deficiencies. There was no procedural unfairness or irrationality in the inspector's approach.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed