1002: Solar DCO decision made three weeks early

This week’s entry covers the latest decision on a DCO.

Taking us by surprise, the new Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (pronounced DEZNEZ) issued its first decision on a Development Consent Order application a whole 22 days early.

• Project: a solar farm of up to 500 MW capacity, near Chelmsford in Essex;
• Promoter: EDF Renewables, via a special company, Longfield Solar Energy Farm Ltd;
• Application made: 28 February 2022;
• Application decided: 26 June 2023, just under 16 months, faster than average;
• One inspector: Rory Cridland;
• 104 relevant representations: below average;
• 23 written representations: about average (and a fairly high RR:WR ratio);
• 133 questions in the first round: low;
• Two issue specific hearings, one compulsory acquisition hearing, and one open floor hearing: low;
• Three local impact reports, from Essex, Braintree, and Chelmsford;
• One consultation during the decision stage on protective provisions; and
• 720 documents on the Planning Inspectorate web page on the date of the decision: above average.

The Examining Authority recommended approval. Some notes:

This solar farm application was still decided under the no-NPS section of the Planning Act 2008, 105, but there shouldn’t be many more as the revised National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy covers solar and will be designated soon. The timing was such that only the 2021 draft revised EN-3 was able to be taken into account by the Examining Authority, but the need declared therein was considered to be important and relevant.

The development was agreed to be needed, despite some parties saying it was too big – I don’t think a renewable energy project will ever be ruled out for being too big given the critical need to achieve net zero.

On site selection, although the Applicant was driven more by proximity to a substation than avoiding best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land, the approach was considered acceptable. A pretty high 34% of the site was BMV land, but the applicant concluded that the impact on it was not significant since it was only temporary and only about 1.3% would be lost permanently. The effect on BMV land was accorded ‘a small amount of negative weight’, which may embolden others.

The project was determined to be beneficial in ecological terms, which is fairly unusual for an NSIP but perhaps not for a solar farm. The biodiversity metric for habitat, hedgerow, and river units was calculated, and the increases were 87.15%, 21.75%, and 0, respectively. One will eventually not be allowed to point to a bigger increase in one score to offset a less than 10% value in another (the so-called ‘trading issue’– even when 10% would have only been 2.5 units for the watercourse metric compared with over 800 surplus habitat units), but it was allowed in this case before BNG becomes mandatory for DCOs in 2025.

The visual impact was moderately adverse since, although largely temporary, it would be for quite a long time (15 years). Heritage impact was also moderately adverse, mainly due to an impact on the setting of a Grade I listed building.

On socio-economic issues, the addition of new permissive rights of way was a benefit (albeit one that could be withdrawn), and the loss of some mineral extraction (18,000 cubic metres) had little impact on mineral resources. Tip: When considering BMV or mineral resources, use a national or regional percentage so that it is very small.

On the DCO, the Secretary of State removed some provisions. An article about the removal of human remains was removed as none had been found and the Written Scheme of Investigation process was considered adequate. A provision suspending private rights or restrictive covenants was removed for being too uncertain, as was one allowing the transfer of the benefit of the order to a subsidiary without approval.

Rather curiously, the version of the Biodiversity Metric referred to in the order was updated from 3.1 to 4.0 or any later version by the time the landscape and ecological management plan is approved. ‘Curiously’ because the 87% increase is still hard-wired into the requirement when we don’t know if that is still the increase under the new metric, and this also sets a precedent that later versions may apply to projects up to biodiversity gain plan approval, not just DCO (or planning) application, examination, or consent.

It has been four months since the previous DCO decision, but the next one could be next week, if the delayed Boston Alternative Energy Project is granted by its new deadline of 6 July 2023.

Infrastructure (Wales) Bill: All you need to know

The Welsh Government introduced the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill into the Senedd on 12 June 2023. The Bill is a major step towards supporting Welsh Government’s commitment to delivering on renewable energy targets and net zero emissions by 2050.

Join our upcoming webinar on 13 July 2023 at 9:30am, where we will cover the following:

• What’s in the Infrastructure (Wales) Planning Bill and how it changes infrastructure planning in Wales
• Differences between the proposed regime and the DCO regime under the Planning Act 2008
• Whether the changes will help streamline planning consenting in Wales

Register for the webinar by following this link.

To hear the latest updates from our experts, subscribe to our Planning Act 2008 Blog.