Longfield Solar Farm consent demonstrates good practice for project promoters

The Secretary of State for Energy Security & Net Zero granted consent for the project on 26 June, three weeks ahead of schedule. This is the third solar DCO to be granted, with Pinsent Masons’ Planning & Environment team acting for the promoter on two of the three projects, including Longfield.

The Longfield application was for solar photovoltaic (PV) with an energy storage facility (BESS), cable corridor, 500MW import / export connection to the National Grid, and an extension to the existing National Grid substation, on a site of approximately 450 hectares (ha).

Examination of the application ran relatively smoothly, with the scheme not attracting as much public interest as some other solar DCOs currently in the system. Longfield had 104 ‘relevant representations’, 23 written representations and 713 documents submitted to the examination overall. The examination incorporated one set of virtual hearings, eight deadlines and an examining authority comprised of a single inspector.

Our experience of promoting the Longfield application through examination stage, and the successful decision, offers useful insight into what the examining authority will look for when considering a solar DCO application.

Stakeholder and community engagement

The examining authority’s recommendations report (386-page / 5MB PDF) (ExA’s report) and the secretary of state’s decision letter (38-page / 395KB PDF) (SoS’s DL) on Longfield make clear the benefit of reaching agreement with stakeholders and engaging early and often with those potentially affected by a planned solar scheme.

Many issues were agreed with Longfield stakeholders and ‘statements of common ground’ signed early on in examination – which considerably narrowed the live issues during examination stage and meant that this could be more focussed on outstanding points. This was perhaps also a factor in the decision being made early.  Similarly, sensitive and early engagement with people living near to the scheme appears to have been beneficial in terms of the level of opposition experienced during the examination.

Concerns around BESS safety

BESS fire safety has been and is likely to be an area which gives rise to considerable local community concern, not least because large scale fires have historically occurred at some BESS installations around the world. As a result schemes need a well-developed BESS fire safety plan to be submitted with the applications and this needs to have been consulted upon by the local fire and rescue services. It is also prudent to have an expert on fire safety to be engaged from an early stage to develop this plan.

In the Longfield examination, the applicant’s battery expert was able to speak confidently and in detail of the applicant’s experience with battery storage and what measures and testing it was undertaking in this respect.  The ExA described the applicant’s evidence on this matter as “compelling”, noting that Longfield “has demonstrated a thorough understanding of the risks involved and the measures required to ensure they are suitably mitigated”.

‘Best and most versatile’ land

The Longfield decision is encouraging in its approach to ‘best and most versatile’ (BMV) land use and solar. The Longfield scheme includes around 34% BMV land, with 150ha of that BMV lost temporarily (due to a requirement that the scheme is decommissioned after 40 years) and 6ha lost permanently due to the substation.

During examination, Longfield’s case involved demonstrating how the DCO limits had been refined to minimise BMV; the measures in place to protect soil during construction, operation and decommissioning; the lack of alternatives in proximity to the grid connection with lower BMV; the temporary and reversible impact of the scheme; addressing each parcel of BMV within the DCO limits and explaining why it wouldn’t be usefully used for agricultural purposes if taken out; other sustainability considerations as to why they should remain; and how overall this represented an effective use of land. Helpfully, agreement was reached with Natural England that there wouldn’t be a permanent significant effect. The ExA and SoS agreed that the inclusion of the BMV land was justified, albeit this did still amount to limited harm. This conclusion took into account that the applicant had sought to minimise impacts on BMV land, and that any loss was limited in extent and duration and could be justified.

Some interested parties raised concerns about food security during the Longfield examination. The ExA and SoS concluded that there was no robust evidence that the loss of BMV land over the 40-year duration of the scheme would jeopardise the UK’s food security, now or in the future. The ExA stated that “when considered through the lens of food security, the Proposed Development would successfully enable the energy needs of today to be met while preserving the land’s agricultural value for future generations”.

Site selection and design evolution

There has, in our experience, been an increased focus on ‘good’ design in the context of energy nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) over the past 3-4 years, whilst site selection is a key focus for solar opposition groups. The experience from Longfield – and other recent energy schemes – emphasises the need for application documents to set out the evolution of the scheme’s design and how good design has been an integral factor from the start.

Similarly, a robust and thoroughly justified approach to alternatives and site selection is crucial to assist with defending attacks relating to location and, particularly, project size. On Longfield, the SoS agreed with the ExA’s conclusion that “although the key driver of site selection appears to be the availability and proximity of a grid connection” the applicant had provided sufficient details of alternatives and its approach to site selection.

Routing construction traffic

On many recent energy schemes, changes have been needed to the application in order to accommodate transportation of HGVs and AILs [abnormal indivisible loads] to site during construction. This was a consideration that arose during the examination of the Longfield application, although it was able to be dealt with without making any change to the application.

Given the rural location of most solar farms and the often narrow country roads that are involved, there may well be a need to widen roads, oversail private land, or do other street works to facilitate construction traffic. This may require consultation, land within the Order limits and powers in the DCO, so ideally these requirements need to be identified early on. Comments made by a representative of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero at the recent NIPA conference suggested that one of the reasons why the decision on Longfield may have been made early was because there were no changes to the application following submission.

Importance of land deals

Longfield is an excellent example of the benefits that flowed from having early landowner agreement for the main solar site. As a result, the examination had very little focus on compulsory acquisition powers as these were largely not in contention.

The early agreement also meant advanced planting was possible ahead of the grant of consent, thereby mitigating visual impacts earlier. The applicant was also able to work with the landowner on the strategy to minimise and avoid use of BMV land.

Avoiding a cap on generating capacity

The ExA and SoS agreed that it was not necessary to limit the generating capacity of the scheme, which was a decision in keeping with the approach taken on the Cleve Hill and Little Crow solar project decisions. The ExA was satisfied that appropriate controls were in place to regulate the scheme’s impacts.

When preparing the application for submission and during examination, we were careful to ensure a robust “consenting envelope” was established whereby appropriate controls via design principles, works and land plans, requirements and various management plans were secured via the DCO – ensuring that the scheme will be constructed within the parameters assessed in the environmental statement.