Planning Permission for Energy Recovery Facility Upheld

The Court of Appeal has dismissed a challenge to planning permission granted for an energy recovery facility, confirming that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government complied with her statutory duty to give adequate reasons for the decision. The ruling provides important guidance on how planning decision-makers should approach development plan policies, including the proximity principle in waste planning.

Background to the Case

An energy company applied for planning permission to construct an energy recovery facility designed to incinerate non-recyclable waste and generate electricity. The proposed development was located on an unallocated site.

The local planning authority refused permission, citing (among other reasons) that the proposal failed to demonstrate sufficient advantages over sites allocated for waste development in the statutory development plan.

The company appealed. A planning inspector recommended that permission be granted, and the Secretary of State accepted that recommendation.

Legal Challenge by Local Campaign Group

A local campaign group opposed to the development brought a claim for statutory review under Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The group argued that:

• the planning inspector and Secretary of State failed to address part of a development plan policy concerning the proximity principle, which seeks to ensure that waste is treated as close as possible to where it is produced;
• the policy had been misinterpreted or applied irrationally; and
• insufficient reasons had been given on a principal issue in the case.

High Court: Adequate Reasons Were Given

The High Court rejected the challenge. It found that the campaign group had interpreted the spatial strategy in the development plan too narrowly by focusing on site location alone, without properly considering the policy as a whole.

The Court also rejected criticisms that the inspector had failed to deal separately with individual policy criteria or to explain the application of the proximity principle. It concluded that both the inspector and the Secretary of State had given adequate reasons for deciding that the proposal complied with the policy in its entirety.

Court of Appeal Confirms Lawful Decision-Making

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment. It found that the campaign group’s arguments failed to recognise:

• the overlap and interrelationship between different elements of the policy; and
• the wider spatial strategy underpinning the development plan.

Two of the alternative sites relied upon by the local authority were located within the Green Belt. The Court noted that planning permission for such sites would require the demonstration of very special circumstances sufficient to clearly outweigh harm to the Green Belt. The inspector was entitled to conclude that it would be difficult to show such circumstances if the development could be acceptably located outside the Green Belt.

The Court held that the inspector and Secretary of State had provided ample and intelligible reasons for granting permission, including in relation to the proximity principle. It rejected the suggestion that objectors could not understand why their case had failed or what the implications of the decision were for future applications.

Q&A: Key Planning Law Points Explained

What is the proximity principle in planning law?

The proximity principle seeks to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of as close as possible to where it is produced, reducing transport impacts and promoting sustainability.

Must every part of a planning policy be addressed separately?

Not necessarily. Decision-makers may consider policies holistically, particularly where criteria overlap or are closely interconnected.

What duty does the Secretary of State have to give reasons?

Under planning law, the Secretary of State must give reasons that are intelligible and adequate, enabling parties to understand why a decision was reached. Detailed responses to every argument are not required.

Why did Green Belt considerations matter in this case?

Alternative allocated sites were within the Green Belt, where development is subject to strict controls. The inspector was entitled to consider whether relocating the facility would cause greater planning harm.

What does this case mean for future planning challenges?

The decision reinforces the high threshold for successful statutory challenges and confirms that courts will not interfere where planning judgments are properly reasoned and lawfully made.

Contact Us

Planning disputes and statutory challenges can be complex and time-sensitive. Our Planning and Environmental Law team advises developers, local authorities and community groups on planning permissions, appeals and judicial review.

If you require advice on a planning application, policy interpretation or a potential challenge, contact Willett & Co Solicitors today for clear, expert guidance.