NR12 0PW — North Norfolk

A significant designation or a weak local approval record applies here — expect a harder case.

• ✓North Norfolk has approved 100% of the 26 solar farms it has decided (UK-wide 93%).
• ·Median time to a decision there is 2.7 months (UK-wide 2.3).
• !Listed building (THE HILL HOUSE THE HILL, HAPPISBURGH) — The point falls within a listed building; listed building consent is separate from planning.
• ·Conservation area (Happisburgh) — Character and appearance must be preserved or enhanced.
• ·Heritage at risk (Happisburgh) — A designated asset on the at-risk register; Historic England engagement is likely.
• ·Nutrient-neutrality catchment (Upper Thurne Broads and Marshes) — Nutrient budgets/mitigation may be required before consent.
• !Agricultural land is Grade 1 — "best and most versatile", which weighs against ground-mounted solar and usually needs justification.
• ✓Within 25 km, 10 comparable schemes were consented and 0 refused.
• !Flood zone 3 (high probability) — the sequential and exception tests apply, and a flood risk assessment will be required.
• ✓Surface-water flood likelihood is Very Low (Environment Agency NaFRA2) — rainfall flooding, which flood zones never show.
• ✓Grid: 12 MW across 29 connections is already connected or accepted within 10 km, served mainly by Norwich — relatively light local use. This is competition for capacity, not a measure of what is available.

Download PDF

North Norfolk has decided 26 solar farms, approving 100%, with a median 2.7 months to a decision. Of 1 appeal, 1 was allowed. 3 applications awaiting decision.

See every solar scheme in North Norfolk →

What that land grade has cost others: 31 ground-mounted solar schemes on Grade 1 land in England reached a decision and 84% were approved, against 94% on Grade 3 land.

Agricultural land classification: Grade 1 — "best and most versatile" land, which weighs against ground-mounted solar.

Measured at a single point, from the national planning data platform. A site boundary may intersect designations this point misses — and landscape and cumulative impact, two of the most common real reasons for refusal, are professional judgements that no dataset contains.

At the optimal 41° tilt facing due south, a fixed array here models 1055 kWh/kWp/year on the long-run average — so a 5 MWp scheme would generate roughly 5,275 MWh/year. Year-to-year variation is ±41.5 kWh/kWp, giving a P90 of 1001.8.

Modelled by PVGIS (PVGIS-SARAH3) with 17.8% total system losses, including real terrain shading. Indicative for feasibility — not a bankable energy yield assessment, which needs site-specific shading, soiling and layout modelling.

Zone 3 is the highest-probability designation for rivers and sea. The sequential test applies, the exception test may apply, and a site-specific flood risk assessment will be required — this is one of the most common reasons a development scheme fails.

Flood zones are the planning designation for rivers and sea only, ignoring defences; the likelihood bands include defences and add surface-water (rainfall) flooding, which zones never show. Measured at a single point — the official flood map draws the exact boundary.

A steep plot — expect substantial earthworks or a split-level design, and get a survey before committing.

Levelling the whole 150 m × 150 m area to 19.41 m would move 12,445 m³ of cut and 21,028 m³ of fill — on the order of £203,407–£449,725 of earthworks at typical rates.

Read this as a worst case. It assumes levelling the entire area — most schemes level only a building platform, or use a split-level design or retaining walls instead, all of which move far less earth. Rates are indicative and exclude retaining structures, rock, contamination and disposal tax. From the Environment Agency 1 m LIDAR composite (22,500 ground points), which is bare-earth terrain — buildings and trees are already stripped out. A screening figure, not a substitute for a topographic survey and an engineer's design.

Only 12 MW across 29 sites is connected or accepted within 10 km. Less local competition on record — but roughly 17% of register entries carry no coordinates, so this is a floor rather than a full count, and it never guarantees available capacity.

What is connected nearby: Solar 11 MW (17); Fossil - Gas 1 MW (1); Other 0 MW (1); Biofuel - Landfill gas 0 MW (1) · connecting at 11 kV.

Transmission queue at Norwich

Transmission-level projects contracted at the grid supply point serving this area, matched by substation name — indicative, since the two registers name nodes differently.

What this is not: available capacity. These registers show what is already connected or contracted, which tells you how contested the local network is — no open dataset publishes deliverable MW at a point. About 17% of register entries carry no coordinates, so the totals here are a floor. The grid supply point shown is the one serving the most connections nearby, which may not be the node that would serve this site. Confirm with a formal DNO connection enquiry before relying on any capacity assumption.

The nearest recorded schemes of this technology, whatever the outcome — refusals are the useful ones. About a quarter of REPD records are located only approximately, so distances are indicative.