Agenda item

 

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

 

Recommendations

 

That Cabinet:

 

1.     Delegate authority to the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment in consultation with the Head of Planning and Building Control andCabinet member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy to submit to the Planning Inspectorate all documentation and relevant evidence for their consideration and deal with all procedural matters that may arise in relation to this application and any future applications that fall under the legislation for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

 

2.    Agree to the proposal that a report be submitted to the Planning Board on a quarterly basis to provide a summary of all responses submitted from the Council to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in the previous quarter.

 

 

The Chair began by clarifying that the item was for information only. The Whitestone proposal was a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), which meant the decision would be made by the Secretary of State, not the Council. It was clarified that Rotherham Council had no power to approve or reject the application. The Council’s role was to provide factual information to the Planning Inspectorate, including a Local Impact Report. The Council could not make a recommendation either way.

 

The Chair went on to explain that if Members or members of the public wished to raise objections or concerns at this stage of the process, they must be submitted directly to the applicant and in the event a development consent order (DCO) was accepted, thereafter to the Planning Inspectorate. Local MPs, parish councils, and community groups could also make representations.

 

The Chair clarified that this was to give members and residents an understanding the process and the Council’s limited role within it.

 

The Chair then invited Councillor John Williams, Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy to introduce the report. In terms of outline and background, NSIP proposals were those planning applications or projects that the government deemed of such national significance and importance that the responsibility for granting planning permission rested with the government, through the Planning Inspectorate. The Council was not a decision-maker on those proposals.

 

Rotherham was facing its first NSIP: the proposed Whitestone solar farm, which also extended into Doncaster. This had prompted a review of the constitution, where it identified a gap in how the Council handled its statutory consultee role in the NSIP processes. The cabinet report aimed to establish internal procedures for responding to NSIP applications.

 

The Cabinet report proposed delegating the preparation and submission of responses to the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment, in consultation with the Head of Planning and Building Control and the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs, and the Local Economy.

 

This approach addressed two key issues:

1. Tight timescales – typically 28 days to respond, which made routing through Cabinet or Planning Board impractical.
2. Technical nature – responses were technical, not decisions requiring a vote.

 

While Whitestone was the immediate context, the report itself made no judgment on its merits. It focused on ensuring the Council had a clear process for handling any future NSIP proposals.

 

Simon Moss, Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport stated that NSIP projects were of such national importance and scale that decisions were made by the Secretary of State, not the Council, and were handled through the Planning Inspectorate via a DCO.

It was noted that the process could take up to two years, which was much longer than typical planning applications and involved several stages, as outlined in the report. NSIPs frontloaded the planning process, placing greater emphasis on shaping the proposals before formal examination.

 

Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport clarified that as the host authority, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) was a statutory consultee and was consulted at every stage. It was explained that the process meant multiple documents required responses within short timeframes, the most significant being the Local Impact Report. This report outlined the likely local effects of the application, both positive and negative, without making judgments, which was the role of the Planning Inspectorate. Due to the tight deadlines (often 28 days), it was not feasible to seek formal approval through Cabinet or Planning Board as would normally be done. That was why the delegations were proposed, to ensure timely responses could be provided.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy noted that the report also recommended providing quarterly updates to the Planning Board. This was in recognition of the significant public interest in NSIP applications, particularly following the Whitestone proposal. These updates aimed to keep the process transparent by sharing what had been submitted and the current status of any NSIP applications. It was also a way to build in public engagement by ensuring information was regularly brought into the public domain.

 

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries on the points raised.

 

The Vice Chair raised an issue around communication. People often focused more on headlines than the detail, and the agenda item titled “Authorisation – Whitestone Solar Farm” may have caused confusion. It was felt that it was a mistake and indicated that alternative wording like “delegation” or removing “Whitestone” altogether may have been clearer.

 

Councillor Bacon followed on by asking: why now? The report stated that delegation schemes should be established as early as possible for NSIP applications. Whitestone was already in its second statutory consultation phase, meaning it had already passed the first. The Vice Chair questioned whether this could have been done earlier, asking if it was simply triggered by the statutory phase, or was there an earlier opportunity to implement the delegation scheme?

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy acknowledged that the title could have been clearer. The use of “Authorisation – Whitestone Solar Farm” might have implied the Council was making a decision on the proposal, which was not the case. A term like “delegation” or removing “Whitestone” altogether might have been more appropriate.

 

On the second point, it was noted that earlier consultations had been led by the developer. The current phase was the statutory consultation, which had triggered the need to formalise the Council’s internal delegation process. The report referenced government guidance encouraging local authorities to establish such processes as early as possible and it was felt the timing was appropriate.

 

Nigel Hancock, Head of Planning and Building Control echoed Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy’s point, the first stage of consultation had been non-statutory and led entirely by the developer. While encouraged, it was not required, so there had not been a pressing need to establish formal governance at that stage, especially since the application hadn’t yet been submitted.

 

The process had reached the statutory consultation phase, which was the point at which government guidance recommended reviewing governance arrangements and ensuring appropriate delegated authority was in place. As this was the Council’s first NSIP project, it took time to review how other local authorities had approached similar situations. That preparatory work, combined with the lead-in time for cabinet reports, meant this was the earliest practical opportunity to bring the matter forward.

 

Councillor Thorp understood that Whitestone was being handled nationally and was largely outside the Council’s control, aside from the setup. However, it was noticed that other solar farms appeared to be attaching themselves to the Whitestone proposal, effectively expanding its scale. It was asked, when those additional proposals eventually came before the Planning Board, if the Whitestone development could be taken into account, given that they were clearly linked and contributing to a larger overall scheme.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control explained they had taken legal advice on this matter. When Whitestone had prepared its environmental statement, it had considered other consented and proposed solar developments within the borough. As noted, there were smaller, non-NSIP planning applications that also needed to be considered.

 

The Council had wanted to ensure that Whitestone’s environmental statement properly addressed cumulative impacts by factoring in other existing or consented solar developments. The legal advice was clear: cumulative impact assessments could only include developments that were either existing or already consented. Since Whitestone was neither, it could not be considered in cumulative impact assessments for smaller adjacent applications. However, if Whitestone were to be consented and other solar developments approved, then Whitestone would need to account for those in its own environmental statement, and the Planning Inspector would need to consider the cumulative impacts at that stage.

 

Councillor Thorp had followed up by referencing attendance at a Planning Inspectorate session, where two parties were proposing similar projects simultaneously. While the inspector was required to assess each proposal individually, local residents experienced the combined impact, placing the Council in a difficult position.

It was acknowledged that this created a dilemma: either the Council ignored public concerns or strictly followed the process, which stated that Whitestone did not yet exist. That particular aspect had raised the greatest concern.

 

Councillor Baggaley raised concerns the wards affected and whether all relevant wards had been properly covered in the report. The second question focused on the nature of the delegation, what it specifically involved and how input from others could be incorporated. It was emphasised that elected members had valuable insight into what was happening within their wards and the impact on local communities. The question was how members could contribute evidence from their areas to inform the Council’s submissions during the NSIP process.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control indicated they had double-checked the affected wards and believed they were covered. The Local Impact Report, as referenced by the Cabinet Member, was intended to address all relevant planning matters within the environmental statement. They welcomed supporting information to strengthen the assessment but noted that anyone could submit representations directly to the Planning Inspectorate. While the Council considered all input, only evidence that could be verified and grounded would be included in the report. The Head of Planning and Building Control encouraged individuals or groups to submit their opinions directly to the Planning Inspectorate, as they were the decision-makers, not the Council, to ensure all views were heard.

 

Councillor Blackham had sought to clarify the situation. Whitestone had entered its third consultation phase, running from 16 September to 28 October 2025, during which time, individuals had the opportunity to submit objections if they wished. Councillor Blackham expressed uncertainty about when the Council’s submission to the Planning Inspectorate was scheduled, noting that Whitestone had its own timetable listed on their website. The concern was that the Council needed to clearly state its position and submit its views promptly.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control clarified that the DCO had not yet been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, as Whitestone was still in the statutory consultation phase. The Council had specific deadlines to respond to documents issued during this stage.

 

The Local Impact Report was scheduled for submission during the pre-examination stage, which would only begin once the Planning Inspectorate accepted the application. That stage was expected in spring 2026 and would last around five to six weeks, during which the Council could submit its report.

 

However, comments on the draft Environmental Statement were due by 28 October 2025, as Whitestone needed to include them in its application. Before accepting the application, the Planning Inspectorate would also ask the Council to confirm whether Whitestone’s consultation had been adequate. Overall, the Council was still around six months away from entering the pre-examination stage.

 

Councillor Blackham asked for clarification, suggesting that if individuals submitted objections to the consultation process before 28 October, it might help inform the Planning Inspector’s decision. In response the Head of Planning and Building Control noted that objections to the consultation process had to focus on whether adequate consultation had been carried out, not on the principle of the development itself. The Council’s role was to assess whether Whitestone met the consultation standards expected by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

Next Councillor Yasseen acknowledged finding the report difficult to understand, though clarified that this was not a criticism. The complexity surrounding Whitestone and other planning matters was recognised.

 

Councillor Yasseen’s focus had been on options one and two in the report, with concerns about accountability and transparency depending on which option the Council chose. It was questioned how residents in affected areas might perceive delegated powers and whether this would weaken the connection between elected members and their communities.

 

It was also noted that the report’s risk mitigation section addressed government guidance but did not reflect local implications and queried the consequences of taking no action.

 

The Chair said had been clarified that objections needed to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate because Whitestone was a national application, not a local one. This explained why both the Council and objectors had to direct their responses to that body.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy explained that under the “do nothing” option, submissions would have gone through Cabinet, but timing conflicts made that impractical. Delegation was supported to avoid confusion, as the submissions were technical, not decisions requiring votes. Cabinet involvement could have misled residents and blurred responsibilities. For those reasons, the recommendation to delegate authority to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Head of Service and Cabinet Member, was endorsed.

 

The Head of Planning and Building Control clarified that, as the Council was not the decision-maker, local objections had to be submitted directly to the Planning Inspectorate. Residents were encouraged to register as interested parties to ensure their views were heard. The Council, acting as a statutory consultee, included verified impacts both positive and negative in its Local Impact Report, while personal opinions were best submitted independently.

 

The Monitoring Officer added that ward members could also support the representation role. While technical matters were handled by officers, representations were best made through the channels outlined by the Head of Planning and Building Control. Members had the opportunity to contribute through the national process as well.

 

Councillor Yasseen appreciated the response but found the report confusing, particularly around timeframes. Both options in the report referenced short timescales, yet it was stated that the Planning Inspectorate did not set a specific deadline for submitting the Local Impact Report. This raised questions about where the time pressure was coming from, and which part of the report should be prioritised.

 

The Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy acknowledged the complexity of the subject and noted that the Local Impact Report timeline was uncertain, as the application had not yet been submitted. It was felt that it was likely that Cabinet or Planning Board schedules would conflict with NSIP deadlines, making delegation the more practical option. It was also emphasised that the submissions were technical, not decisions requiring votes, and invited officers to provide further clarity on the timing.

 

Andrew Bramidge, the Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment explained that the application process was expected to take around two years, though the exact stages and timings were still unknown. Once the Planning Inspectorate requested the technical submissions, the Council would typically have 28 days to respond. That was the key time pressure being referred to.

 

Councillor McKiernan wanted to double-check the post-decision part of it asking if that meant the Council was delegating authority to the Strategic Director after the inspector had said yes, go ahead? The Head of Planning and Building Control explained the Cabinet report was prepared ahead of the decision to ensure the Council could respond quickly to the Planning Inspector. If the DCO was accepted and permission granted, similar to a planning application, there could have been conditions to meet during construction or after development.

As the planning enforcement authority, the Council would have had the power to take enforcement action if those conditions, set by the Planning Inspector, not the local authority, were breached. The Planning Inspector did not monitor the development once the DCO was approved.

 

Councillor McKiernan acknowledged that after the decision was made, the Council resumed its usual planning enforcement role. Concern was raised in relation to section 1.7 on post-decision matters, specifically responding to material change notifications. For example, if the Inspector approved the DCO and a change like widening a bridge later emerged, which wasn’t part of the original decision, was the report delegating authority to the Strategic Director to approve such changes? This lead on to a query about whether the Council were effectively delegating planning permission for potentially significant developments. The Head of Planning and Building Control noted the Council already had a scheme of delegation in place that did not cover this. However, post-decision material and non-material changes would have fallen under the standard delegation process. If changes arose after the decision, particularly material ones the Council would have needed to notify local residents. If significant objections were received, the matter would have followed the usual process through Planning Board.

 

Councillor Blackham was reading from the Whitestone 3 document, which outlined the next steps. It stated that after consultations ended on 28 October, the final masterplan and environmental statement would be submitted as part of the DCO application, along with the consultation report. Councillor Blackham said that suggested they planned to proceed with the DCO immediately after 28 October. At that point, the timing appeared to be in their hands, as they were responsible for submitting the application, raising a concern about the Council’s position if they submitted the DCO straight away.

 

In response the Head of Planning and Building Control  indicated that the Council could not control when they submitted the DCO but in terms of the statutory consultation which they're currently going through and that finishing on the 28th of October, they had a duty to consider what responses they had got to that statutory consultation plus the responses to the environmental statement that the Council made before they made an application under the DCO. If they submitted it without taking that into consideration, the Council would clearly make an objection about the pre -consultation stage. It is likely that the application would not be accepted until they had shown due process that they properly considered any representations they'd made to that statutory consultation process.

 

Councillor Adair wanted to raise a concern. On 13 October, following pressure from Sarah Champion, a consultation was secured with Whitestone. The area was set to be heavily impacted by solar panel installations, and it was felt unacceptable that they had been ignored, despite being a key part of their plans. During those discussions, it was clear they had already made their decisions and done the calculations. They did not feel their input was genuinely considered, which was felt was not an appropriate approach.

 

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations that Cabinet:

1. Delegate authority to the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment in consultation with the Head of Planning and Building Control and Cabinet member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy to submit to the Planning Inspectorate all documentation and relevant evidence for their consideration and deal with all procedural matters that may arise in relation to this application and any future applications that fall under the legislation for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects.

 

2.    Agree to the proposal that a report be submitted to the Planning Board on a quarterly basis to provide a summary of all responses submitted from the Council to the Planning Inspectorate in respect of Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects in the previous quarter.

 

An additional recommendation to Cabinet was put forward as follows:

3.    Agrees that a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document be developed to provide clear and accessible guidance on the process for making representations to support elected members and residents.