- Climate Litigation Database
- /
- Search
- /
- United Kingdom
- /
- R (on the application of McLennan) v. Medway Council
R (on the application of McLennan) v. Medway Council
About this case
Filing year
2019
Status
Decided
Geography
Court/admin entity
United Kingdom → England and Wales → High Court of Justice
Case category
Suits against governments (Global) → Environmental assessment and permitting (Global) → Renewable projects (Global)
Principal law
United Kingdom → Planning Act 2008United Kingdom → Town and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004United Kingdom → Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (England and Wales)
At issue
Whether planning board erred in failing to consider that proposed development would infringe on neighbor's use of solar panels.
Topics
, ,  
Documents
Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
Summary
A British court ruled that a local planning board had erred in granting a development permit without considering whether the proposed project would affect the neighbor's ability to generate electricity from his solar panels.
In October 2017, the claimant received permission to install solar panels on the south-facing wall of his residential property in Rochester, Kent. In September 2018, the claimant's next-door neighbor, whose detached residence lies immediately to the south of the claimant's house, applied to the Medway Council for planning permission for the construction of a dormer. The claimant objected on the ground that the proposed development would block the sun, and adversely affect his ability to generate electricity from his solar panels. The planning board granted permission in December 2018.
After the claimant challenged the permit, the Court concluded that the planning board incorrectly decided that the claimant's concerns about the development's effect on his solar system were immaterial. The Court reasoned that both the Medway Local Plan and the British National Planning Policy Framework recognize the positive contribution of even small-scale renewable energy schemes to addressing climate change. The Court further held that the planning board erred in deciding that the claimant's objection was purely a matter of private interest -- as opposed to public interest -- given the role of solar energy in reducing greenhouse gases. The Court accordingly quashed the permit.
 Topics mentioned most in this case  Beta
See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more
Group
Topics
Risk
Impacted group
Just transition
Renewable energy
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Adaptation/resilience
Finance