Infrastructure Planning Blog

This week's entry looks at the latest solar development consent order (DCO) decision and other planning news.

Beacon Fen

The Beacon Fen Energy Park Order 2026 was made on 21 August 2026. The Examining Authority recommended approval and the Secretary of State (SoS) agreed.

The applicant is Beacon Fen Energy Park Limited, a subsidiary of Low Carbon. The project is an energy park located near Heckington in Lincolnshire, comprising 400MW of solar generation and 600MW of battery energy storage. That's the highest battery energy storage component of any made development consent order to date.

The fact that the battery storage capacity is greater than the solar generating capacity does not necessarily mean there will be surplus storage capacity. On the Applicant's evidence, "the power generated by the main solar development over the course of a day can regularly exceed the energy storage capacity". This meant it was still lawfully "associated development", i.e., subordinate and proportionate to the principal solar development in accordance with the Planning Act guidance on associated development. The local authorities disagreed with the Applicant on this point but the SoS favoured the Applicant's interpretation of the guidance.

The Secretary of State has removed a widely precedented provision which would enable changes which would be environmentally better. The decision letter says it is "inappropriate to remove assessment of materially new or different changes, even if the change is potentially positive." For context, that provision does not remove the assessment requirement, but provides the ability to vary within the terms of the consent and within the Rochdale Envelope. They have been included in a great many DCOs. Those sorts of provisions were endorsed by the Nuclear Taskforce (see Recommendation 28) and it wasn't too long ago the Government identified the absence of these provisions would "disincentivise … environmentally beneficial changes or makes them unviable".

Several parties objected to the Applicant's approach to alternatives and site selection. In particular, concerns were raised that the Applicant had not followed a structured alternatives search for the proposed cable corridor from the solar site to the National Grid substation. The SoS helpfully confirms that the consideration of alternatives and site selection is not an exercise in perfection. The SoS referred to paragraph 4.3.24 of National Policy Statement EN-1, which states that "the Secretary of State should not refuse an application for development on one site simply because fewer adverse impacts would result from developing similar infrastructure on another suitable site". Overall, the SoS was satisfied that the Applicant had undertaken an appropriate assessment of reasonable alternatives and adequately explained the reasons for its choices.

In terms of impacts on best and most versatile (BMV) land, 56% of the land within the Order limits was BMV land and would be "lost" either temporarily (for 40 years) or permanently. The cumulative pressure of solar developments on BMV land resource within Lincolnshire was also considered and, in combination with the high proportion of BMV land within the Order Limits, in the SoS' view justified according "great negative weight" to BMV impacts in the planning balance.

On my research, this is the only time the SoS has allocated such a significant negative weighting to BMV impacts in the context of a solar scheme. Ultimately, this did not weigh against granting development consent in the SoS' view. However, it does seem to shift the dial for future solar developments affecting BMV land in areas already hosting significant solar development.

Whilst on the topic of BMV land, the SoS also references the 15 May 2024 Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) on Solar and Protecting our Food Security and Best and Most Versatile land as "an important and relevant consideration in deciding this application". Amongst other things, the WMS says "Applicants for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects should avoid the use of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land where possible".

This is interesting because four days prior to the Beacon Fen decision, the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published.  Annex A of the NPPF confirms that 28 WMSs, including the 2024 WMS on solar and BMV land, have "either been fully or partially incorporated within the National Planning Policy Framework or no longer represents up-to-date government policy". The Beacon Fen decision appears to indicate that the 2024 WMS will continue to be relevant in decision-making on DCOs, where the relevant NPS applies not the NPPF, or possibly that they will be phased out and only apply to DCOs applied for before the updated NPPF was published. Let's see.

Given the project's proximity to a number of built and proposed third party schemes, there are lots of protective provisions in the made Order (15 in total although the contents page of the made Order incorrectly identifies 14 – the last one is missing). Those for Ecotricity (Heck Fen Solar) Limited and Bicker Drove Limited (the missing one from the contents) are notable in providing protection for the interests of third parties for as yet un-built infrastructure (proposed solar farm and BESS developments respectively), which is relatively uncommon.  

It is worth noting that the SoS stopped short of including Bicker Drove's preferred protective provisions, which included a clause requiring consent to be granted before powers under the DCO could be exercised. The SoS concluded that this "could have potentially put at risk the deliverability of the Proposed Development". That conclusion should apply as a matter of principle across all protective provisions in my view.

Lincolnshire County Council (LCC) has said it is seeking legal advice on a potential judicial review of the decision (see here). That follows LCC and North Kesteven District Council's joint challenge (on nine separate grounds) to the Springwell Solar Farm DCO (see here). That case is still at the permission stage, so it remains to be seen whether it will proceed to a substantive hearing.

I'm Batman

Finally, Buckinghamshire County Council has served a listed-building repairs notice on the owner of Mentmore Towers, which was used as Wayne Manor in Batman Begins (see here). Historic England say it is at immediate risk of 'rapid deterioration or loss of fabric'. The notice no longer appears to be available for public viewing but reportedly requires emergency works to be undertaken to preserve the structure of the building and for the owner to appoint a licensed bat (naturally) ecologist and complete three bat-emergence surveys by August 2027.

Under section 47 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 the Council could seek to acquire compulsorily the building if reasonable steps are not being taken for properly preserving it. That power appears to be used extremely rarely.

BNG guidance

Finally, on 27 August, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs published guidance about biodiversity net gain for developers of nationally significant infrastructure projects. Angus will be covering this in next week's blog.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at August 2026.  For more information see our terms & conditions.