The High Court has dismissed a challenge to the grant of planning permission for a 29.7MW solar at Woolley Edge Lane, Wakefield. A local resident challenged the planning permission on three grounds. 

First, that the Council’s planning officer did not have a lawful basis for disagreeing with the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer who had advocated the refusal of planning permission on the basis of heritage impacts.  

Secondly, that the Council failed to consider whether there was a clear and convincing justification for heritage harm; and whether, as the Design and Conservation Officer thought, the application should be refused unless some solar panels were removed from the scheme.

The third ground was that the Council had acted in a procedurally unfair manner by failing to reopen consultation after the developer had made amendments to the planning application in February 2025 by introducing further mitigation planting and following changes to the National Planning Policy Framework from December 2024, introducing the “grey belt” concept.

Mr Justice Kerr dismissed all three grounds. On Grounds 1 and 2 the judge held that the officers were entitled to form their own view and were not obliged to follow the advice of the Design and Conservation Officer. He also rejected a series of criticisms of the officers’ report as technical and over-legalistic. There was no basis to suggest that there was an error of approach to the clear and convincing justification test. It was obvious from a fair reading of the report as a whole that officers had that test in mind. As to the removal of panels, officers had to assess the scheme in front of them. The real question was whether the mitigation planting was effective to reduce harm to an acceptable level. The officers asked that question and concluded it was. That was a matter of planning judgment.

As to Ground 3, the judge held that the submission of plans incorporating new planting but otherwise leaving the scheme unchanged did not obligate the Council to reconsult as a matter of fairness. Nor did the change to national policy in relation to grey belt. In any event, the claimant was aware of those changes, the developer’s submissions on the changes and submitted his own comments and as such was not prejudiced.

A copy of the judgement can be found here.

Mark Westmoreland Smith KC, instructed by Bevan Brittan LLP, acted for Boom Developments Limited, the developer.