Judges at the Court of Appeal are today hearing the latest chapter in a complicated planning dispute about overlapping planning permissions.
The protracted dispute, Fiske v Test Valley Borough Council, seeks to unpack the planning complications created when a company that planned to build a solar farm in Hampshire was granted two separate and incompatible planning permissions for the same project.
Woodington Solar applied for planning permission in 2017 for a solar farm and substation on a plot at Woodington Farm, East Willow.
By 2021 the company had altered its plans, and decided to build a smaller solar farm on the site. The earlier planning permission was quashed by consent, and council granted planning permission for the updated development.
Local resident Chala Fiske took legal action to oppose the development. Her legal team argued that the council made a mistake when it granted planning permission in 2021 because it should have considered the incompatibility of the two schemes to be “a mandatory material consideration”.
Fiske’s first challenge was rejected by the Court of Appeal in December. The court found that the council’s decision to grant the 2021 planning permission was valid based on “a straightforward analysis, applying well-established legal principles to the circumstances in which the 2021 permission was granted”.
This second challenge relates to a 2022 amendment to the 2021 planning permission focusing on a substation that was in the 2021 permission and omitted in 2022.
Multiple planning permissions covering the same plot can be a feature of complicated planning projects and can also lead to expensive and protracted legal disputes. For example, Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Parks Authority ended up in the Supreme Court in 2022.
The judges are expected to give judgment at a later date.
Test Valley Borough Council (appellant) v Fiske (respondent) and another
Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Dingemans, Lord Justice William Davis, Lord Justice Holgate) 10 October 2024