A recent appeal decision for the proposed 49.99MW solar farm at land south of Wood Lodge Farm, Thrapston, offers a timely lesson for developers and local authorities alike: the path to delivering renewable energy is not always straightforward, especially where protected habitats are involved.
Ecological Concerns: Functional Link to the Special Protection Area
The site was outside a Special Protection Area (SPA), but the extent to which it was functionally linked to it (as foraging habitat for birds) was a key issue in understand the likely effects on it. The Inspector gave considerable weight to evidence from local campaigners, including verified records of both species using the site, and found shortcomings in the developer’s survey methodology—particularly the absence of nocturnal surveys for species known to forage at night.
Functionally Linked Land describes areas of land or sea occurring outside a designated site which is considered to be critical to, or necessary for, the ecological or behavioural functions in a relevant season of a qualifying feature for which a Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)/ SPA/ Ramsar site has been designated (Natural England). These habitats are frequently used by SPA species and so are important to the integrity of the SPA.
The Inspector:
- Accepted evidence that the land was functionally linked to the SPA – with the local campaign group demonstrating beyond all reasonable scientific doubt (Waddenzee) that the proposed development would be likely to have a significant effect on the “integrity of the features for which the SPA has been designated” (i.e., as wintering habitat for wildfowl and wading birds and for its assemblage of over 20,000 non-breeding waterbirds).*
*It is worth noting that the Inspector appears to have applied the Waddenzee test not to the Appellant’s assessment of the impacts on the SPA, at least not explicitly, but instead to the extensive and persuasive evidence presented by the objecting local group. This is an inverse application of the test and demonstrates that the submission of evidence by objectors is capable of influencing an Inspector’s determination of an applicant’s (or appellant’s) appropriate assessment.
- Rejected the Appellant’s proposed solution (involving alternative land that was not functionally linked to the SPA for mitigation) due to concerns about the suitability of the alternative land owing to conflicting uses, fragmented parcels (contrary to the need of the species in question for large open spaces), and proximity to disturbance (a right of way).
In light of these findings, the Inspector concluded that the proposed development conflicted with both local and national policy on biodiversity protection, and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.
The Need for Renewable Energy is Not Always Enough
The decision highlights the significant hurdles facing solar farm developers in ecologically sensitive locations. Even where the urgent need for renewable energy is accepted and carries “significant weight,” this does not trump the legal and policy protections afforded to habitats of European significance.
The Inspector was explicit: the need for renewable energy, whilst important, is not enough to justify development where it would cause unmitigated harm to protected species—especially as “this is not the only location where a solar farm could be located.”
Often, applications are granted permission on appeal by virtue of the substantial demand for renewable energy generation in the UK. However, in this case, the Inspector felt that the need for green power was not weighted heavily enough to justify the grant of permission.
Plan for Success
This appeal decision is a cautionary tale for solar farm developers: ecological constraints can and do override the benefits of renewable energy where harm cannot be avoided or mitigated.
The need for renewable energy is not a “silver bullet”—developers must engage early and thoroughly with ecological issues, and be prepared for the possibility that some sites, however promising, may simply not be suitable.
The planning balance will always be context-specific, but where ecological impacts cannot be avoided or adequately mitigated, refusal is likely—even in the face of pressing renewable energy targets.
Developers should always consider the extent to which they:
- are able to present persuasive evidence that the proposals will not harm protected sites (in some cases needing to surmount the evidence of opposing groups);
- have assessed credible mitigation strategies where any risk is identified; and
- have carried out robust ecological surveys, including consideration of nocturnal activity and the use of independent verification where possible,
when making an application that interacts with a protected site.
