Two councils have been left "deeply and unbelievably disappointed" as proceedings to challenge the Sunnica Solar Farm project have been forced to end.
Four councils - East Cambridgeshire District Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, Suffolk County Council and West Suffolk Council - came together to bring forward judicial review proceedings against the approval for the new Sunnica Energy Farm.
The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband MP, granted development consent for Sunnica Energy Farm in July 2024, much to the dismay of local councils and residents.
Today (August 21), it was confirmed that the challenge brought about by the councils now comes to an end after two councils decided to pull out of proceedings.
Cambridgeshire County Council and West Suffolk Council have stepped away from the process. The cost of legal fees for East Cambridgeshire District Council and Suffolk County Council would "no longer be a justifiable use of public funds" as a result.
Councillor Anna Bailey, Leader of East Cambridgeshire District Council, said: "I am unbelievably disappointed with the decisions of Cambridgeshire County Council and West Suffolk Council to pull out of the Group action.
"They have expended public funds, the legal position has not changed, and yet they are now refusing to finish what we started. What a waste and what a let-down for local residents.
"Now local taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill for the costs to the councils of this unwanted, appalling development."
Cllr Bailey added: "East Cambridgeshire District Council will work to do all it can to mitigate the impact of this development, secure local benefits and to stand by its residents."
The Sunnica solar farm is set to have three sites - one near Isleham, one near Freckenham and Worlington, and one near Chippenham and Kennett.
A spokesperson for Cambridgeshire County Council said: "Cambridgeshire County Council has confirmed that it will not be taking part in a Judicial Review of the Sunnica decision.
"This is a decision that was made by the Joint Administration and took into account the previous legal advice, the importance of offering value for money to our taxpayers and the low likelihood of a challenge succeeding."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here