Infrastructure Planning Blog

This week's entry looks at the decision to grant development consent for Green Hill Solar Farm and other recent infrastructure planning news.

Green Hill Zone

The Secretary of State (SoS) has granted development consent for Green Hill Solar Farm. The Order is here. The project comprises 500MW solar generating capacity, a Battery Energy Storage System and grid connection infrastructure. The site is in Northamptonshire and would operate for up to 60 years. The application was examined by an Examining Authority (ExA) of three members. The ExA recommended that the Order be made (report here). The SoS agreed (decision letter here).

Here are the key takeaways:

• Impacts on skylark: the Applicant proposed a significant mitigation strategy for skylark and other ground nesting birds that would be displaced by the solar panels. This included alternative habitat and management of fields for biodiversity enhancement. The Applicant also partially relied on skylark being displaced into suitable neighbouring habitats. The strategy was opposed by Milton Keynes City Council (MKCC).  The SoS was sympathetic to MKCC's concerns, "… especially to those regarding the ability of the surrounding land to absorb the potentially significant number of displaced skylark". The SoS also noted that the Applicant did not own all of the surrounding land and there was no guarantee it would be available for the 60-year operational length of the development to accommodate the influx of skylark. The effects from the development on skylark therefore weighed negatively in the planning balance. This was despite Natural England's support for the mitigation proposals. On that, the SoS simply noted that "Natural England have no specific remit regarding skylark, unless the species is a feature of a designated site, which is not the case for this Proposed Development".
• Agricultural land: approximately 850 ha of the land comprised Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land, i.e., the most flexible, productive and efficient land. This would not be available for the 60-year lifetime of the development. The SoS acknowledged that 60 years was a long time but it was not permanent and the impacts were therefore temporary and reversible. However, taking that temporary loss together with the (assumed) permanent loss of 4.3 ha of BMV land under the BESS and substation, the SoS concluded that this carried moderate negative weight in the planning balance. Note also that because the Applicant had not formally committed to making land around the panels available for grazing during operation, this carried no weight in the planning balance.
• 60 years of operation: several authorities opposed the 60-year operational life of the scheme, arguing that 40 years was 'typical' in NPS EN-3 and would be materially preferrable in respect of the development's impact on local communities. The SoS disagreed. Paragraph 3.10.56 of NPS EN-3 explicitly states that "An upper limit of 40 years is typical, although applicants may seek consent without time-period or for differing time-periods of operation".  A 60-year lifespan has also been secured in numerous previous Orders, including Mallard Pass, Cottam, West Burton, Gate Burton and Tillbridge.
• DCO drafting: the SoS has again removed the widely precedented provision which would enable post-consent changes which would be environmentally better – we commented on the very same amendment to the Beacon Fen Energy Park Order 2026 in entry 65 (here). That is despite recommendation 28 of the Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025 specifically recommending the reinstatement of a provision in Development Consent Orders which allows "variations that deliver environmentally better solutions". This is quite striking not just because of the precedent and clear Government policy, but it says in clear terms that there is an expectation for environmentally worse solutions ("even where the change in question is characterised as positive or as a reduction in an assessed adverse effect"). As we previously noted, the justification provided that it is not appropriate to "remove assessment of materially new or materially different environmental effects" seems to miss that the provision doesn't affect assessment requirements (and, in fact, positively requires them when read in context).
  
  The SoS also made an interesting addition to the provision disapplying certain legislation. Article 6(4) confirms that regulation 3(2) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 is disapplied "… to enable the restoration of land at decommissioning stage – assessed within the environmental statement – to proceed without triggering a separate EIA Agriculture screening application". This removes the potential need for a further screening process that might otherwise be triggered where the restoration proposals would increase the agricultural productive of land that has not been cultivated within the previous 15 years. I have not seen this disapplication before. It seems sensible to include it in draft solar orders from now on!

Another solar decision is due to be made today – Steeple Renewables Project – and we will be covering that in next week's blog.

LionLink

LionLink is a proposed subsea interconnector between the UK and the Netherlands.  On 22 September, the developer made an application to the SoS seeking a variation to the section 35 direction originally issued by the SoS in August 2022, confirming that the project is a development for which development consent is required. This was on the basis of changes to the project that will form part of the DCO application, including the name of the project, an increase in export capacity (1.8GW up to 2GW) and a reduction in the extent of proposed substation works.

The SoS has replied confirming that it is not necessary to vary the 2022 direction. None of the changes altered the physical nature of the development and the updates "remain within the scope of the [original] Direction".

Section 35 variations are quite rare – see here (Ferrybridge Carbon Capture and Storage Project) and here (Lighthouse Green Fuels Project) for the two I am aware of.

On the Radar

The Civil Aviation Authority published Version 7.1 of CAP 764, its guidance on wind turbines, on 10 September 2026. Under CAP 764, wind turbine projects near NATS, civil aerodrome or Ministry of Defence radar installations are often required to secure a Radar Mitigation Scheme (RMS) before the turbines can operate. That's because turbines can interfere with radar systems.

The specific measures underpinning RMS' are usually subject to non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). This is unpopular because NDAs reduce transparency, limit industry collaboration and make it more difficult for Examining Authorities and local planning authorities to assess whether proposed measures are genuinely deliverable. The updates to CAP 764 seek to address some of these issues by confirming that NDAs should only be used to the minimum extent possible, that tiered confidentiality should be considered, and that clauses permitting disclosure to regulators and planning authorities should be included as standard.

Finally, a reminder that Angus Walker is hosting an event in our London office to coincide with the application of biodiversity net gain to nationally significant infrastructure projects on 2 November 2026. If you would like to join, please register here.

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