A recent planning committee where one of my client’s solar farms was up for determination was dominated by fierce local opposition. One committee member who couldn’t be present for the debate had sent in written statement supporting the local objectors. In that statement he wrote, “the overriding consideration (in the determination of the planning application) must surely be the will of the local residents”.

A recent planning committee where one of my client’s solar farms was up for determination was dominated by fierce local opposition. One committee member who couldn’t be present for the debate had sent in written statement supporting the local objectors. In that statement he wrote, “the overriding consideration (in the determination of the planning application) must surely be the will of the local residents”.

Well, I and the rest of the planning profession have news for this local councillor and those who supported his view on the night: public opinion, no matter how vociferous, cannot be taken into consideration in the determination of planning applications. The law is clear on this. Planning decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations are “any consideration which relates to the use and development of land....Material considerations must be genuine planning considerations, i.e. they must be related to the development and use of land in the public interest".

The path of solar applications over the past 18 months illustrates how communities and their local elected representatives have come to believe that sheer weight of opposition alone can stop development proposals that are in accordance with the development plan for the area and all relevant government policy and guidance. Viewed against the background of the minister for climate change urging solar developers to engage in “meaningful consultation” and to “provide opportunities for local communities to influence decisions that affect them”, who can blame them?

Of course, planning officers know that public opposition is not a legitimate reason to refuse permission for any development, hence you won’t find it stated on any refusal notice. A valid planning reason has to be found and with solar farms “unacceptable landscape impact” has become the popular fall-back position. One man’s blot on the landscape is another man’s acceptable change to the vista. Prove otherwise.

It is easy to see how a call to provide a platform for public participation in the process (something that has been a part of planning for decades) translates in the minds of those vehemently opposed to solar farms into the NIMBY cry of “if we don’t like it we don’t have to have it”. Interestingly, in this age of collective guilt about the state of the planet this statement now tends to be preceded by “I’m all for green energy BUT....”.

But the minister’s words are not a passport to veto development. If they were, we would all quite quickly go BANANAs (or, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything). The minister has merely reiterated a long-standing planning principle of developers and planners engaging with communities.

But the problem isn’t just at the local level. The Ellough case, described by planning blogger Andrew Lainton as “the worst argued secretary of state decision in recent years”, demonstrates how easy it is for a decision to be overturned on the most spurious of grounds. It is hard to see how this appeal case would have ever been called in by the secretary of state had the solar farm in question not attracted such vigorous and persistent opposition from the local community.

But the consequences of playing to the gallery to score political brownie points are immense, not least because it undermines the integrity of a plan-led system of development control that has been in place for more than 60 years. The problem with this type of localism is that it serves the educated and well-heeled but not the poor. It is planning by privilege. Large-scale construction projects essential for the economic health of the nation will be forced into areas where people don’t have the time, resources, education and contacts to oppose them.

This is the antithesis of the golden thread that runs through all planning policy: sustainable development.

It is socially inequitable, hitting the poor hardest. It is environmentally harmful as it means development doesn’t go to where it is best suited, making inefficient use of natural resources. Finally, it is economically damaging because it causes delay and significantly increases costs for developers.

Sustainable development has, according to the NPPF, three dimensions: social, environmental and economic. Allowing public opinion to effect planning decisions results in a failure in all three dimensions.

As The Observer noted in an editorial last year, “When planning is weak, it favours people with the resources to fight for their back yards – the groups that can hire lawyers, run campaigns and organise publicity”.

Under the current system councillors who use planning committee as a platform from which to ingratiate themselves to the local electorate face no sanction for doing so.

So what can be done?

One radical solution might be to put in place legislation that allows developers with an officer recommendation for approval to opt out of planning committee. Developers would be given the opportunity for their application, with its officer recommendation that planning permission be granted, be determined not by the local planning committee but by the planning inspectorate.

This would be similar to the ‘special measures’ against failing councils brought in by the government last year. It would, in essence, be a gamble on leap-frogging committee and going straight to appeal.

This is unlikely to happen, for we cherish and defend democracy in this country, and rightly so. It’s a key and valued part of the planning process, but the definition of town planning is the control of the use of land in the public interest. Planning does not exist to defend the rights and assets of a few. Local elected representatives have to make difficult decisions in the public interest and if they are unable to do that then those decisions should be taken out of their hands.