Deal Farm Public Inquiry

WRM provided an expert witness to the appellant on a high profile planning public enquiry in Norfolk.

The Deal Farm public inquiry was held in 2024 in relation to planning permission for a partially constructed agricultural anaerobic digestion and biomethane plant near Bressingham, Norfolk.

The development project had a complex planning history including a longstanding extant permission, retrospective planning permission to cover an amended design, and planning enforcement notices requiring removal of the built infrastructure.

The case, which evolved over several years to the point of the public inquiry was highly contention and had a high profile throughout the renewable energy industry as a consequence of some of the matters for refusing planning permission and the potential precedence that the case could establish.

The Local Planning Authority (LPA) statement of case contained several technical matters upon which Engie required expert witness support. These included:

• The design of the anaerobic digestion plant and its ability to meet regulatory standards
• The mass balance for the facility, including process water requirements and sourcing. The claimed energy output was also examined in support of the planning balance arguments.
• The feedstock requirements for the facility, including quantities and sources, and their compliance with the Green Gas Support Scheme
• The efficacy of the plant, including the ability of the selected plant and equipment to process the target dry matter of the identified feedstocks.

The case expanded rapidly, with the LPA witness augmenting the key points with additional technical arguments on the unsuitability of the plant.

Technical support was also required to support the transport, planning policy, and landscape visual impact proofs of evidence.

WRM provided technical expert witness support across the headline matters within the LPA statement of case. A range of industry knowledge, insight and experience was used to dismiss each LPA argument, with benchmarking, modelling and calculations, and primary and secondary research being used to develop a robust evidence proof.

Following the submission of the appellant evidence, WRM undertook a rebuttal of the LPA evidence which challenged several of the assertions made against the appellant’s case. This rebuttal was produced with a further evidence base that validated WRM’s observations and challenges.

Following direction from the presiding Planning Inspector, we worked with the opposing LPA witness in a collaborative yet principled way to reach common ground on a majority of the contentious matters. Critical discussion and a willingness to debate the context and technical assumptions was key to this outcome.

The project concluded with the provision of aural evidence through direct and cross examination, the duration of which took up a full day of hearing time. The quality and high standard of aural evidence and response to cross examination questions was recognised by both sets of legal teams and the opposing LPA witness.

The evidence provided by WRM addressed all technical matters to the extent that the presiding Planning Inspector did not cite any technical concerns in the appeal decision.

The appeal was however dismissed due to parallel concerns on local highway matters.