- Development consent for Norfolk Vanguard offshore wind farm quashed on failure to consider cumulative impacts (Pearce v BEIS)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- BEIS acted unlawfully
- Were the grounds for deferral rational in the circumstances?
- The reasons for the decision were legally inadequate
- Case details
Planning analysis: The decision of the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to grant the application for development consent for the Norfolk Vanguard Offshore Wind Farm has been quashed following an order issued by the High Court in judicial review proceedings brought by a local resident. The issue which the court had to consider was whether the Secretary of State could defer evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the onshore substation of Norfolk Vanguard and its ‘sister’ project Norfolk Boreas, until the second application was examined. Written by Helen Mitcheson, solicitor, at Trowers & Hamlins LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial