Infrastructure Planning Blog

This week’s blog covers the UK’s largest solar DCO decision, the roll out of the principal regulator model and proposed updates to Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) guidance.

Here comes the sun

The Springwell Solar DCO application has been granted. This was for an 800MW project south-east of Lincoln, the largest so far in the UK, capable of powering 12.5m homes, according to the government's press release.

The decision letter is here. The decision was taken on time and the Examining Authority (ExA), comprising two inspectors, recommended approval.

There is some debate about the carbon savings of such a project - is it to be compared to gas-fired power equivalent emissions or the average UK energy mix (which would be less of a saving given the amount of renewable energy that would include)? Recent decisions had differed but the Secretary of State (SoS) now categorically prefers the latter interpretation. Even on that basis this project would still make significant savings.  Presumably it means that future renewable energy DCOs will make less of a difference as we get closer to net zero generation.

One of the current issues about large generation projects is that the provision of electricity substations to connect to isn't keeping up and so projects are relying on substations that haven't got permission yet. This one was in that category. The SoS did not agree with the ExA's recommendation to make commencement contingent on the substation getting consent.

There was a stooshie (as we say in Scotland) about funding being available for eventual decommissioning but the ExA chose not to recommend a requirement (for a bond) on that.

The local planning authority North Kesteven wanted the replacement of panels not to exceed 5% overall, but the SoS said that, as long as doing so had no new environmental impacts, that would do.

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) figures have been hard-wired into the DCO of 27.16%, 19.06% and 13.59% for the three metrics.

The SoS concluded that there was not a significant additional impact from the cumulation of large solar projects in the area because there were breaks between them and only one road passed through this project and another one.  However, landscape and visual impacts were still concluded to carry great negative weight.

Hours of operation on Saturday were shifted from 7am to noon to 8am to 1pm as that was more acceptable locally.

The ExA thought that being near a substation was not an 'operational reason' to be in Flood Zone 3b and suggested removing panels in that zone but the SoS disagreed and said the flood risk appraisal had been robust.  Flood water was not unduly impeded by the solar panels if they are raised above expected levels.

There were several changes to the ExA's recommended DCO but nothing significant not already mentioned. The ExA's recommended DCOs at the end of their report are here for comparison (e.g. requirements 21-23 were removed).

Principal regulator model roll-out

The Fingleton Review (one of the authors being a co-author of this blog, Mustafa) included a recommendation (number 3) to have a lead regulator through which issues could be fed rather than having to deal with several regulators on similar topics. This is beginning to be rolled out, even beyond the nuclear sector.  The Environment Agency is taking on this role for Sizewell C, the Lower Thames Crossing, Lighthouse Green Fuels and East West Rail in respect of Natural England and the Marine Management Agency.  Let's see if this speeds things up.

HRA guidance update consultation

Also a Fingleton recommendation (number 11), the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is consulting on updating guidance relating to Habitats Regulations Assessments (HRAs) to make it 'clearer and more usable, focusing especially on areas where applicants and decision makers face uncertainty, and to encourage the efficient application of the regulations'.

The consultation can be found here and it runs until 19 May. It gives some case studies of new vs old, including a wastewater upgrade and a windfarm. The former would be quicker because absolute certainty of no effect on integrity is clarified not to be required, ‘just’ beyond reasonable scientific doubt, and the latter because compensation is clarified as not needing to exactly replicate what is damaged by the project if there is still the same ecological outcome for the site network.

The affirmation that competent authorities should “only consider real not hypothetical risks” and that “that there does not need to be zero probability of an effect for it to be ruled out” is welcome. As is the idea that “If a competent authority needs to complete a new HRA, they should make use of any relevant parts of an existing HRA where possible” (see Recommendation 11(d)).

As predicted, the recommendations of the Fingleton review are being applied more widely than just to nuclear projects. Small changes but perhaps significant, particularly if this guidance was given statutory underpinning. There is a perhaps naïve view that only cultural changes are needed, and this guidance would address that element. Giving the guidance a statutory underpinning would, however, entrench and embed proportionality. The Government has said that “If upon review these issues remain, the government will consider legislating to ensure effective and appropriate application of the HRA regime”, so that could still happen if guidance alone doesn’t make a difference.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at April 2026. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.