High Court overturns planning appeal for West Sussex solar farm
An application, to place rows of panels on 49 hectares of agricultural land in Runcton, was refused by Chichester District Council in May 2025
The High Court has quashed a decision to allow a solar farm to be built on land in West Sussex.
An application, from BNRG Langmead Ltd, to place rows of panels on 49 hectares of agricultural land in Runcton, was refused by Chichester District Council in May 2025. An appeal was launched and the development was allowed by the Planning Inspectorate in March.
But now, thanks to the actions of resident Mark Linzey, the appeal will have to be looked at again after the High Court gave permission for a statutory review.
A spokesman for the district council said: “After the appeal for the solar farm was allowed, a local resident sought a judicial review of the inspector’s decision on several grounds.
“The main argument was that the Inspector had failed to appropriately consider the impact of works to a culvert upon water voles.
“As a result, the Planning Inspectorate (and the other named parties in the action) decided not to defend the challenge and acknowledged that the Inspector’s actions had led to procedural unfairness.
“The appeal will now return to the Planning Inspectorate to be redetermined. We await further information from the inspectorate on what process this will take.”
Mr Linzey is part of SMART-FFF (the South Mundham and Runcton Trustees – Fields For Food), a group of residents concerned about development on prime farming land and in the Wildlife Corridor.
In a statement to residents, the group said: “What happens next is that a new Planning Inspector is expected to be appointed to review the case. We understand that, rather than holding another public hearing, the new decision will instead be based on written submissions.
“We are hopeful that this provides a renewed opportunity to ensure that all the important issues are properly considered – including the impact on our landscape, ecology (including the Wildlife Corridor), flood risk, the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land, and the amenity value of our rural lanes.
“It is also important that the limitations of our narrow lanes – including transport capacity and the safety of residents, walkers, cyclists and other road users – are fully taken into account.”
The council originally refused the application due to the loss of best quality agricultural land and the impact on the landscape and rural character of the area.
The High Court ordered the Government to pay Mr Linzey’s costs up to £35,000.