- Decision
- approved, 14 September 2026
- Decided by
- Secretary of State: Baroness Curran for SoS DESNZ; ExA D Cliff, J Gorst, R Morgan, M Rokicka
- Authority
- Fylde / South Ribble / Blackpool / Preston (Lancashire) (North West)
- Application reference
- EN020032
- Procedure
- inquiry
- Development
- DCO for offshore and onshore transmission assets for two consented offshore wind farms - export cables, landfall, onshore cables, two onshore substations in the Green Belt and 400 kV connection to Penwortham
- Site context
- green belt, open countryside
- Green Belt
- Yes (grey belt not argued)
- Framework applied
- December 2024 NPPF (transitional)
- Determinative policies
- NPS EN-1 5.11.37, GB6(2)
- Development plan policies
- Fylde Local Plan to 2032 GD2, GD3, GD7, ENV5
- Main issues
- Green Belt VSC; aviation safety; habitats; onshore ecology; compulsory acquisition
Summary
This was a DCO for the onshore and offshore transmission assets of two consented Irish Sea wind farms. It included two new onshore substations in the Lancashire Green Belt, connecting to the National Grid at Penwortham. The Examining Authority recommended refusal. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero granted consent on 14 September 2026, after post-examination information resolved the bird-strike risk to BAE Warton and the habitats (SPA integrity) issue. It is the first Secretary of State planning decision found that expressly acknowledges the August 2026 NPPF. The letter says the new Framework changes nothing, and it applies the 2024 wording.
Issues and findings
- Which Framework. "The NPPF was recently updated on 17 August 2026. Where the Secretary of State refers to the NPPF in this letter, these are references to the 2024 version, which was the version in effect during the Examination and the majority of the determination period. However, the Secretary of State has considered the updated NPPF, and finds that there is nothing contained within the updated NPPF publications which would lead her to reach a different decision on the Application" (DL ¶4.2).
- Green Belt: HARM, substantial weight. The two substations "would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, causing significant the harm to the openness of the Green Belt, and undermining the purposes of the Green Belt. In accordance with 5.11.37 of EN-1, the Secretary of State considers that the harm to the Green Belt should be given substantial negative weight" (DL ¶4.113). The letter does not mention grey belt or GB7. The ExA's balance was run under 2024 NPPF ¶¶153 and 160 (DL ¶4.112).
- Very special circumstances: SHOWN. "the very special circumstances, in terms of the significant increase in production of renewable energy, now clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm resulting from the Proposed Development" (DL ¶7.16). This reversed the ExA, which had found no VSC once bird strike and SPA harm were added (DL ¶4.112).
- Aviation. The weight fell from great to limited after BAE and DIO withdrew their objections under revised mitigation (DL ¶7.6, ¶7.15).
- Habitats and ecology. The Secretary of State concluded there would be no adverse effect on integrity. Significant negative weight remained for onshore ecology and waders (DL ¶7.7, ¶7.15).
- Heritage. Moderate harm to buried archaeology. "Preservation by record" is not mitigation. Benefits outweigh the harm, with "clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶7.8, ¶7.13).
Planning balance
The decision was under PA 2008 s104, on NPS EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5 (2024) with the NPPF as an "important and relevant" consideration. A Green Belt VSC balance under EN-1 ¶5.11.37 was run "against all harms". On one side: renewable energy need (substantial). On the other: Green Belt (substantial), onshore ecology (significant), heritage and landscape (moderate each), and several limited harms. The benefits "clearly outweigh" the harms, so the critical national priority presumption did not need to be relied on (DL ¶7.18).
What made the difference
The ExA's refusal rested on two harms that fell away after the examination: BAE's bird-strike objection and the SPA integrity finding. Once they were resolved, substantial renewable-energy weight carried the Green Belt VSC test for two substations that had no alternative site outside the Green Belt. The 2026 Framework made no difference, because the NPS governs and the Secretary of State expressly kept the 2024 references. For Framework-reading purposes the letter mainly shows that NSIP decisions in the transition are not engaging the new policy codes.
Transferable points
- A Secretary of State decision made after 17 Aug 2026 can lawfully keep 2024 NPPF references where the NPS governs and the new Framework "would [not] lead her to reach a different decision" (DL ¶4.2). This is useful evidence that decision-makers themselves see little change on Green Belt VSC.
- Grid-connection constraints that leave no non-Green Belt site, plus substantial renewable weight, can amount to VSC even with significant ecological harm (DL ¶4.113, ¶7.14-7.16).
- "Preservation by record" does not reduce heritage harm (DL ¶7.8).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GB6(2) | harm | substantial | two onshore substations are inappropriate development causing significant harm to openness and undermining purposes (a) and (c); assessed under 2024 NPPF paras 153/160 and NPS EN-1 5.11.37 (DL 4.111-4.113, 7.12, 7.14) |
| W3 | benefit | substantial | urgent need for renewable generating capacity; VSC "now clearly outweigh" Green Belt and other harm (DL 7.4, 7.14-7.16) - assessed under NPS, not under W3 by name |
| N6 | harm | significant | residual significant adverse effects on non-breeding waders and Mill Brook Valley BHS, limited BNG; SoS departs from ExA's great weight and AEoI conclusion on Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA (DL 7.7, 7.15) |
| HE6 | harm | moderate | residual moderate adverse effects on buried archaeology; benefits outweigh with "clear and convincing justification" (DL 7.8, 7.13) |
| DP3 | harm | limited | good design partially met (DL 7.11) |
Key facts
- ExA recommended refusal (bird strike risk to BAE Warton, AEoI on Ribble and Alt Estuaries SPA, onshore ecology); SoS granted after two post-examination information rounds resolved aviation and HRA (DL 2.2, 7.1, 7.15)
- Decision letter dated 14 Sep 2026, four weeks after the 2026 NPPF took effect; SoS said NPPF references are to the 2024 version "which was the version in effect during the Examination" (DL 4.2)
- No suitable substation sites outside the Green Belt given the fixed Penwortham connection point (DL 4.111, 4.113)
- Compulsory acquisition powers refused for Morgan TA because the Morgan developer's parents withdrew from the Agreement for Lease; new Article 3(2) blocks Morgan TA works until a funded developer is in place (DL 7.5, 7.19-7.20)
Sources
- national-infrastructure-consenting.planninginspectorate.gov.uk
- nsip-documents.planninginspectorate.gov.uk
- gov.uk
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.