The Cawston solar park has won planning permission on appeal for almost 94 hectares of farmland north of Aylsham Road in Norfolk. Inspector Diane Cragg allowed the appeal on 14th October 2026, overturning Broadland District Council’s refusal of application 2025/1531.
The renewable energy park would combine ground-mounted solar panels with inverters, transformers, a substation, cabling, security equipment, access and landscaping. It is intended to operate for up to 40 years before being decommissioned, with most of the land remaining capable of returning to agriculture.
I think the Cawston solar park decision matters well beyond this particular site because the central dispute was unusually clear. Most of the land is classed as best and most versatile agricultural land, but the Inspector found that this did not automatically outweigh national support for renewable energy.
Why the Cawston solar park appeal succeeded
Broadland accepted that there was policy support in principle for renewable energy outside settlement boundaries. The argument focused on whether using high-quality agricultural land made this particular development unacceptable.
The site covers 93.44 hectares. The agreed agricultural classification was 18.5 per cent Grade 1, 49.6 per cent Grade 2 and 28.4 per cent Grade 3a. Those categories make up best and most versatile land, often shortened to BMV land in planning decisions. Only 3.5 per cent was Grade 3b or non-agricultural.
The Inspector nevertheless recorded that physical disturbance would affect about four hectares. The effects were considered temporary and reversible, while the solar arrays could coexist with livestock grazing across parts of the site.
For the Cawston solar park, another important point was the wider distribution of productive farmland. Evidence before the hearing indicated that 93.9 per cent of Norfolk and 88.5 per cent of Broadland was likely to be best and most versatile land. There was no evidence that poorer-quality land could realistically provide a comparable site within those areas.
Soil protection remained a serious issue
Allowing the appeal did not mean that the Inspector treated soil quality as unimportant. She considered possible compaction from construction vehicles, maintenance traffic and decommissioning, along with the need to protect the site’s future agricultural use.
The decision requires a soil management plan before development starts. It must cover soil handling, vehicle movements, poor-weather stoppages, stockpiling, re-spreading and methods for dealing with compaction. A separate grazing management plan must explain when livestock grazing will begin and how it will be managed through the operational life of the project.
That is a useful distinction. The planning balance was not between renewable energy and the complete permanent loss of productive land. It included the temporary nature of the use, the relatively small area of direct disturbance and enforceable measures intended to safeguard soils.
Renewable-energy benefits carried substantial weight
The Cawston solar park was also assessed against the revised national planning policies issued in August 2026. Those policies require substantial weight to be given to renewable energy, energy security, economic development and the transition towards net zero.
The scheme would generate temporary employment during construction and decommissioning, provide a small number of permanent operational jobs and produce business-rate income. The Inspector also identified farm-diversification and significant biodiversity benefits.
There was some heritage harm, although it was judged minor. The Inspector found that the substantial public benefits of renewable energy decisively outweighed that harm and said the national balancing exercise “overwhelmingly favours approval”.
The appeal therefore succeeded without the proposal needing to be treated as a departure from the development plan. In the Inspector’s view, the scheme complied with the plan when read as a whole and there was no material consideration justifying refusal.
Conditions control construction and operation
Permission for the Cawston solar park is subject to a detailed schedule of conditions. These cover approved plans, the start date, construction traffic, highway visibility, drainage, landscaping, ecology, archaeology, noise and decommissioning.
A 3.5-metre acoustic barrier must be installed before operation. Noise from operational equipment is controlled against background sound levels, and the access must include visibility splays and room for large vehicles to leave the highway before opening the gates.
The development must be removed at the end of its permitted life or after electricity generation permanently stops. The decommissioning arrangements must cover traffic, noise, dust, ecological protection and restoration of the land.
What happens after the appeal
The practical result is that the developer, Exagen Development Ltd, can proceed subject to satisfying the pre-commencement and other planning conditions. Permission is not the same as an immediate construction start, particularly where soil, drainage, traffic and ecological details must first be approved.
A costs application by Exagen against Broadland District Council was dealt with in a separate decision. This article reports the planning appeal only and makes no claim about the outcome of that separate costs process.
You can read the official Planning Inspectorate appeal record. The council’s planning application search can be searched using reference 2025/1531.
For applicants and landowners, the Cawston solar park decision shows why the amount of land physically disturbed, the reversibility of the use and the quality of the soil-protection evidence can be as important as the agricultural classification itself. High-quality farmland remains a material issue, but it is one part of the full planning balance.
0 Comments