Offshore windfarm substation challenge

The High Court has granted permission to proceed with a judicial review against the government for granting development consent orders authorising two offshore windfarms off the Suffolk coast. The schemes include an onshore substation at Friston, Suffolk, which would connect turbines to the national grid network. The claim focuses on the way the substation was considered during the development consent process.

30 miles off the East Anglian Coast is the ‘East Anglia Zone’, a plot of Crown land allocated for offshore windfarm development. The site is being developed by Scottish Power Renewables and Vattenfall Limited. The first windfarm there was consented to in 2014, and a second windfarm gained consent in 2017. On 31 March 2022, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy granted development consent orders for two additional windfarms: East Anglia ONE NORTH and the East Anglia TWO. This followed an examination carried out by the Planning Inspectorate on the Secretary of State’s behalf that took place from October 2020 to July 2021. The examination report was submitted to the Secretary of State in October 2021.

Our client, Substation Action Save East Suffolk Limited (“SASES”), took an active role in the examination process. They have no issue with the offshore development and support the principle of the development of windfarms generally. However, the claim centres on defects in the way in which the substation and associated infrastructure has been treated and the material considerations the Secretary of State failed to take into account. There are 6 grounds in the claim:

Flooding: The Secretary of State failed to adequately assess the applicant’s flood risk assessment, taking  into account ‘fluvial’ flood risk at the site but not ‘pluvial’ flood risk or the emerging National Policy Statement on flood risk.

Heritage: The Secretary of State purported to give heritage harm “considerable importance and weight”, but that was not reflected in the overall planning balance. T

Noise: The Secretary of State unlawfully failed to consider the impact of noise from switchgear/circuit breakers in the substation. Furthermore, he failed to take into account that his conclusions on noise necessarily entailed a conflict with national policy.

Other grounds: The other grounds relate to the substation’s generation capacity, the cumulative impacts of any extension to the site, and the lack of consideration of alternative substation sites.

The full substantive hearing is likely to be in November. Richard Buxton Solicitors has instructed Richard Turney and Charles Bishop of Landmark Chambers.