It provides a route map through the various policies, some of which are now quite old (such as the 2015 written ministerial statement (“WMS”)) and not wholly aligned with more modern policies.

The Inspector held that where the development was temporary and where grazing would be possible alongside the solar farm, there would be no loss of agricultural land. It would be continued to be capable of being farmed, albeit not for arable. This is a welcome conclusion that properly reflects the nature of the proposed use and its ability to accommodate continued agricultural use.

The Council relied on the WMS and its requirement for compelling evidence to justify the use of BMV to argue that it was inappropriate for Downing to have confined the site search to an area around a point of connection to the grid (“PoC”). The Council said other PoCs should be explored given that there was no non-BMV sites around the Downing’s PoC.

The Inspector rejected this argument. Noting that there is no requirement in policy akin to a sequential test, he found that the PoC was a fundamental requirement and logical starting point for the site search, and that the Downing’s search around the available PoC had been pragmatic and proportionate.

This allied with the wider need for renewable generation (net zero) was sufficient to discharge the ‘compelling evidence’ test in the WMS. In light of which the Inspector did not need to go onto deal with the Appellant’s argument that the WMS and compelling evidence test was out of date.

This decision will be helpful to the industry in that it demonstrates that the compelling evidence test is not a bar to solar farms, as other Inspectors have sometimes appeared to think.

Mark Westmoreland Smith acted for Downing, instructed by Richard Griffiths of Pinsent Masons.