Outline Webinar: The Role of Grid Connections in Planning Applications

In this session Trevor Ivory (Partner) and Michael Greig (Legal Director) discuss the Scottish case of Raeshaw Farms Ltd v Scottish Ministers and EnergieKontor UK Ltd [2026] CSIH 10. This case considered planning permission for a windfarm which was EIA development. It is binding in Scotland and has persuasive authority in England and Wales.

The EIA looked at the windfarm only but not the grid connection route, which would be subject to a separate design and consenting process. The windfarm application was approved by a reporter (a Scottish planning inspector) on appeal, which was challenged by an objector. The court struck down the consent as the reporter had failed to consider what was the “project” for EIA purposes, and whether the grid connection should form part of the “project” as a whole.

Trevor and Michael discuss that:

• The “project” for EIA purposes is not always the same as the planning application red line boundary.
• The case did not state that grid connections must always form part of the “project” for generation schemes; rather, the requirement is to consider the appropriate extent of the “project” for EIA purposes.
• “Salami slicing” does not only mean attempting to reduce the scope of a “project” to avoid the need for EIA altogether.
• The Reporter relied on “the benefits” of the wind farm; however, these may differ in EIA terms from planning benefits considered in the round.
• The principle of defining the “EIA project” extends to infrastructure supporting the application scheme (e.g. roads, substations, overhead lines, borrow pits, construction compounds, and compensatory woodland planting).
• The proposal must be interpreted realistically and is not necessarily premature simply because all aspects are not fully designed.

They consider the correct approach to assessing the scope of the project for EIA purposes by looking at case law, considering for example, common ownership, common determination of consents, functional interdependence, and whether the elements not included are genuinely standalone projects. These are all a matter of planning judgement.

They also discuss practical points for developers who are promoting EIA projects, particularly where some elements remain to be finally settled.

Cases discussed

• Wingfield, R (on the application of) v Canterbury City Council & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1588 (27 November 2020)
• Ashchurch Rural Parish Council, R (On the Application Of) v Tewksbury Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 101 (07 February 2023)
• Together Against Sizewell C Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Energy Security And Net Zero & Anor (Rev1) [2023] EWCA Civ 1517 (20 December 2023)
• Milne, R (on the application of) v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2000] EWHC 650 (Admin) (31 July 2000)
• R v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council ex parte Tew and Others [1999] 3 PLR 74