Test Valley Borough Council (Appellant) v R (on the application of Fiske) (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0022

Parties

Appellant(s)

Test Valley Borough Council

Respondent(s)

Woodington Solar Limited

Chala Fiske

Issue

Can a local planning authority issue a decision notice granting planning permission for a development subject to a condition that is inconsistent with the operative part of that notice?

Facts

On 4 July 2017, Test Valley Borough Council (the “Appellant”) granted planning permission (the “2017 Permission”) for a solar park on 72 hectares of agricultural land in Hampshire (the “Site”). Mrs Fiske (the “Respondent”), a local resident, objected to the application. Planning permission is comprised of the description of the development (the “operative part”) and any conditions that may be attached to the permission granted. The 2017 Permission described the development as “installation of a ground mounted solar park to include ancillary equipment, inverters, substation, perimeter fencing, CCTV camera, access tracks and associated landscaping.” The planning permission was subject to conditions which included: (i) condition 2 - development in accordance with the plans; and (ii) condition 15 - subsequent approval of details of the planned substation. On 24 May 2021, the Appellant granted planning permission to Woodington Solar Limited (the Interested Party at first instance) for a different substation within the boundary of the Site (the “2021 Permission”). To allow the solar park permitted by the 2017 Permission to operate in conjunction with the new substation permitted in the 2021 Permission, the Woodington Solar Limited applied to develop the land without compliance with the conditions in the 2017 Permission, per section 73 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990. Woodington Solar Limited sought permission for essentially the same development approved in the 2017 Permission but with different conditions, namely a different plans condition (condition 2) and removal of the condition that required approval of the substation details (condition 15). This would allow reference to the substation in the 2017 Permission to be removed. The Respondent objected to this application. Permission for this proposal was granted in 2022 (the “2022 Permission”). In June 2022, the Respondent issued judicial review proceedings seeking an order quashing the 2022 Permission. The High Court upheld this challenge and the 2022 Permission was quashed. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal who dismissed the appeal. Now the Appellant appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

12 February 2025

Case origin

PTA

Appeal

Justices

Lord Hodge

Lord Leggatt

Lady Rose

Permission to Appeal

Permission to Appeal decision date

16 June 2025

Permission to Appeal decision

Refused

Back to top