Planning permission granted for Swadlincote ERF

*image credit: Stephen George & Partners Architects.

Following a refusal of permission by Derbyshire County Council and an inquiry held in April this year, the Inspector Paul Griffiths BSc (Hons), BArch, IHBC has allowed the appeal by R&P Clean Power Ltd and has granted permission for "an "Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) and Aggregate Recovery Facility (ARF) together with ancillary infrastructure including grid connection cable and works, private electrical wire provision, substation, CHP off-take provision and off-site habitat compensation and biodiversity net gain.”

The Council had refused permission primarily on the basis that the landscape impact of the proposals was not outweighed by the need for the waste management facility. At the appeal, the Council presented a case that there was little or no need, in contradiction of its officers’ advice last year that there was substantial need for such facilities. Following the refusal of permission, Defra had published its Residual Waste Infrastructure Capacity Note (30.12.24) and this was subsequently found to be of considerable significance in the DCO decision for North Lincolnshire Green Energy Park on 14.3.25. This identified 2 areas in England where there was insufficient residual waste treatment capacity, one of which is the East Midlands (which includes Derbyshire). The Inspector found that there was such a need and that both it and the benefits of the proposals (which would be co-located advantageously with an existing waste site) outweighed the landscape and visual harm which was a common assessment to both parties. 

In conclusion he found:

“77. In my judgment, the harm that would be caused, in its totality, while significant, would be outweighed by the benefits the proposal would bring forward. I reach that conclusion on the basis that there is a clear need for the proposal, and conscious of the obvious advantages of co-location with the existing MRF, and the proposed ARF, with the potential for CCS using the rail spur, and the contribution that would make to the circular economy – something highlighted in the DCN and DMS. Any installation of this sort is going to result in harmful impacts, and it has not been argued that there are sequentially better sites available, especially sites that would provide the obvious co-locational benefits, and a rail spur. Indeed, the Council agrees that there is no suitable alternative site for the facility. On that basis, the level of harm caused would not be undue, or unacceptable, in my view.”

Whilst he found the proposals to be in accordance with the development plan read as a whole, he considered that even if there was non-compliance the need and benefits would justify a decision that was not in accordance with the development plan.

The Inspector made a partial award of costs in respect of the need for evidence. He had found that the Council’s stance on need was unreasonable and having found that the evidence “suggests very strongly to me that a clear need locally has been demonstrated for the proposal” (DL 49) he then stated:

“52. There are two matters I need to address having formed that conclusion. In their evidence, the Council raised questions about the approach of the DCN and the DMS, and some of the assumptions underpinning the figures in the former. There may or may not be something in those questions, but it is not for me to cast doubt on the approach taken by the Secretary of State. To do so, albeit as an appointee of a different Secretary of State in the same Government, would be very likely to be found unlawful. As I have set out above, the Secretary of State has been very clear about the importance to be attached to the DCN and the associated DMS [ministerial statement] and I have followed that direction.

53. In relation to other aspects of the Council’s analysis, I take the view that this is far too granular in its approach. In dealing with the North Lincolnshire Green energy Park DCO, the Secretary of State said in paragraph 4.85 that: The Secretary of State is of the opinion that there is great uncertainty around assessing waste availability and consequently EfW treatment capacity, particularly in the absence of specific EfW policy and guidance on the methodology for modelling and forecasting. In my experience, that is entirely correct. There are many variables and sensitivities involved, and it is necessary, in my view, for any analysis to concentrate on the bigger picture, without getting too bogged down in the minutiae. That is why the Planning Practice Guidance on Waste warns against unnecessary and spurious precision when trying to obtain the best evidence to inform what will be necessary to meet waste needs. Essentially, that is why I prefer the appellant’s approach, which I regard as more pragmatic, and realistic.”

David Elvin KC instructed by Rob Garden of CMS appeared for the Appellant.

A copy of the appeal decision can be found here and the costs decision here.