Neen Sollars solar farm group loses High Court fight

The Save Our Greenhills Community Group in Neen Sollars, near Cleobury Mortimer, had attacked the decision of a Government planning inspector to approve TGW Renewables' application to build a solar farm.

They claim that it will be a blot on the landscape that will be visible from the homes of many village residents. However, in Birmingham High Court judge Mr Justice Dove dismissed the group's challenge and ruled that the planning permission should stand.

Shropshire Council had initially rejected the application, taking the view that the proposed solar farm would be "inappropriate in terms of scale and location" in what is an area of high quality local countryside.

However, in March 2016, the inspector allowed the developer's appeal and granted planning permission. finding that the solar farm would have "no direct effect" on any listed buildings in the vicinity and "no direct impact" on the character or appearance of the Neen Sollars Conservation Area.

The group argued that an increase in the number of panels from 14,200 to 17,180 during the process was not properly publicised, depriving it of the opportunity to make representations in relation to the environmental effects of a more densely crowded proposal - which it argued include flooding, visual impact and harm to the landscape and ecology.

However, dismissing the challenge, the judge said: "I am not satisfied that the way in which the amendments were treated gave rise to any unfairness in the appeal process so far as the claimants are concerned."

He said that while it was "quite unfortunate" that there was some lack of clarity over the number of panels, the precise number of panels was not required by the application form and that the number of panels could at all times be seen clearly from the amended site design drawing which specified the number of panels in its legend.

He said: "I am satisfied that the amended drawing placed fairly and squarely into the public domain a proposal which included amongst its amendments an increase in the number of panels and the density of their coverage and that was clear and obvious from the publicly available materials."

"I am therefore unpersuaded that there was any unfairness or breach of legitimate expectation in the first defendant's decision."

He said that the inspector's decision explains that the appeal development would only affect a very small part of the landscape, adding: "This approach cannot be criticised, and explains the conclusions he reaches that there would be 'no impact on the setting of any heritage asset'."