Ian Galloway, R (on the application of) v Durham County Council

Ian Galloway, R (on the application of) v Durham County Council

The planning permission was unlawful because the Council failed to consider whether it was approving more panels over a larger area than required for a 50MW solar farm, an obviously material consideration given the statutory capacity threshold. This omission was not cured by the non-material amendment, which was also vitiated by legal error. The permission and amendment must be quashed and remitted to the Planning Committee for reconsideration.

Parties
Claimant: Ian Galloway; Defendant: Durham County Council; Interested Party: Lightsource SPV 215 Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Claim for judicial review allowed; planning permission and non-material amendment quashed; costs awarded to claimant.
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Judicial Review, Renewable Energy, Statutory Interpretation, Material Considerations, Non Material Amendments
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Judicial Review Renewable Energy Statutory Interpretation Material Considerations +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Galloway

Claimant

Durham County Council

Defendant

Lightsource SPV 215 Limited

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning permission approved a solar farm exceeding the statutory capacity threshold for local authority approval
  2. 2 Whether the planning permission unlawfully failed to consider the size and capacity of the solar farm in relation to statutory limits
  3. 3 Whether the non-material amendment could cure any unlawfulness in the original permission

Ratio Decidendi

The planning permission was unlawful because the Council failed to consider whether it was approving more panels over a larger area than required for a 50MW solar farm, an obviously material consideration given the statutory capacity threshold. This omission was not cured by the non-material amendment, which was also vitiated by legal error. The permission and amendment must be quashed and remitted to the Planning Committee for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Claim for judicial review allowed; planning permission and non-material amendment quashed; costs awarded to claimant.

Orders

  • The planning permission (reference DM/22/01769/FPA) granted by the Council on 13 July 2023 is quashed.
  • The non-material amendment (reference DM/23/03147/NMA) made by the Council on 7 November 2023 is quashed.