West Suffolk Council and Suffolk County Council exploring legal challenge option to controversial £600m Sunnica solar farm

Two local authorities are exploring the possibility of a legal challenge option to a controversial £600 million solar farm.

The Sunnica 2,500-acre solar farm straddling the border between Suffolk and Cambridgeshire was approved last week by the new energy minister, Ed Miliband, after a decision was pushed back multiple times.

The scheme attracted a lot of local controversy, with residents raising several concerns including the impact on the landscape and farmland.

On Tuesday, West Suffolk’s leader, Cliff Waterman, shared his disappointment at the decision but said he would work to get the best deal possible if the development went ahead.

He added: “If the development must go ahead, we must be ready to reap the benefits it could bring in terms of employment, business rates, and economic development.”

Cllr Waterman also said he had already been in discussions with members of the campaign against the solar farm as well as the leaders of other interested councils and, when prompted by Conservative councillor, Richard Rout, revealed he had instructed officers to look at the viability of a legal challenge through a judicial review.

Conversations with other councils include Suffolk County Council (SCC), East Cambridgeshire District Council, and Cambridgeshire County Council — as it stands, West Suffolk would see two of the four sites, one near Mildenhall and another near Freckenham, while the other two would sit across the border.

Cllr Rout, the county council’s deputy leader for nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs), also revealed SCC was looking at the same option.

He added said: “I think it was the wrong decision, what I want to see now is all local representatives and councils working together to make that point and looking at the decision and seeing on what basis it was made and whether there are any grounds for a challenge.”

Cllr Rout said the county council had not decided whether it would be appropriate for it to pursue a judicial review and added there would be wider questions about cost and proper use of public funds.