Browse by topic
59: A solar decision, revised National Policy Statement for Ports and other news
Today's entry looks at the latest solar decision, the revised National Policy Statement (NPS) for Ports and an update to the Planning Inspectorate's interactive projects map.
On 8 July 2026, the Secretary of State (SoS) granted consent for the One Earth Solar Farm. It is located across the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire border and would provide 740MW of generating capacity. The decision letter is here and the made Order here. The Examining Authority (ExA) recommended refusal on flood risk ground. The SoS has delivered a sharp kibosh of that recommendation.
Flood risk is often a key issue for solar farms given their location on flatter land that is less likely to be approved for housing.
This decision letter includes some important discussion regarding the sequential test.
The sequential test requires development in Flood Zones 2 or 3 (i.e., at higher risk of flooding) to direct development away from the areas at greater risk of flooding. Development should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites at lower risk of flooding. The term "reasonably available sites" means those which are suitable for the type of development proposed, able to meet the same development needs and have a reasonable prospect of being developed at the same time as the proposal.
During the examination, the Applicant undertook a retrospective search of alternative sites and in doing so restricted its consideration to alternative sites within 10km which could deliver a minimum land parcel size of 250 hectares (rather than more numerous smaller parcels which would together make up the full site). The ExA was not troubled by the 10km search area or retrospective nature of the search but did not consider that the 250 hectare limit had been justified, particularly when other solar projects had evidenced that land parcel areas of a considerably smaller size could achieve the delivery of large-scale solar developments. The ExA therefore concluded that the sequential test had not been met, contrary to policy, and ascribed very great negative weight to that finding.
The SoS disagreed. On land parcel size, the SoS noted that "there is neither guidance nor policy that states a fixed land parcel size for searches for reasonably available land must be used". Preach! The SoS accepted that even if more than two disparate land parcels were proposed, this would significantly add to delivery timescales and have an impact on the efficient use of land, and in this case a 250 hectare limit would mean four distinct land parcels would be required (so was not, in the SoS' view, a realistic alternative to the Order Limits in any event).
The SoS also concluded that it was acceptable for the applicant in assessing alternatives to have regard to the willingness of landowners to grant the necessary land interests – "The [SoS] agrees … that unwilling landowners could potentially delay the development process (through the requirement of [compulsory acquisition]) and therefore even if alternative land were found, this land would be unlikely to be able to be developed at the same time as the Proposed Development to meet the 2029 connection agreement date".
Paragraph 4.20 of the decision, written perhaps with Kelly Clarkson's Breakaway playing in the background, is especially emphatic: "The [SoS] considers that there is no policy basis that evidence from other [nationally significant infrastructure project] assessments and decisions should form the basis of a conclusion on whether the Sequential Test has been met or that there are site search radius and site size area thresholds that should be applied". Many thanks, Secretary of State.
There is a note of caution for applicants: "the [SoS] notes that the site selection criterion regarding flood risk could have been more strongly worded so that avoiding areas of flood risk was clearly prioritised as part of the assessment of alternatives from the outset of the Proposed Development". However, this did not change the SoS' overall conclusion, who downgraded the ExA's weighting on this issue from very great negative weight to neutral.
For projects dealing with flood risk issues, there is some further useful commentary on fluvial flooding and the policy requirement to show that development would have a negligible effect on the risk of flooding elsewhere. Requirements 7(2) and 22 impose stringent post-consent controls to ensure flood risk is eliminated at the detailed design stage; these are worth reading.
Two further points to note from the decision letter:
After a good a run, there is a bit of a gap now to the next DCO decision – Beacon Fen Energy Park on 22 August 2026.
A revised National Policy Statement (NPS) for ports was published on 6 July. It replaces the 2012 version and will be formally designated on or after 24 July.
We reported on the draft Ports NPS in blog 7 and the published version is structurally very similar. The key points of difference are:
Finally, the Planning Inspectorate's DCO map has been updated to show boundaries (i.e., Order Limits) as well as markers. It's a useful tool and highlights the scale and geographical range of projects promoted under the DCO regime so far.
This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at July 2026. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.
Legal insights & events
Follow us
