50MW battery storage system at Hallgate Farm, Pilsley, Chesterfield

What was proposed

The application sought a battery energy storage system of up to 50MW, with associated infrastructure, engineering works, drainage, cabling, landscaping and access.

“Proposal Description: Proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with an import/export capacity of up to 50MW and including associated infrastructure, engineering works, drainage, cabling, landscaping and access (Major Development/Affecting Public Rights of Way) (Amended Title)”

Officer report

The site

The 10.57-hectare site was agricultural grazing land beside an overhead line, drainage ditch, public footpaths and Hallgate Lane access.

“The application site covers 10.57ha of agricultural land to the north of Hallgate Lane, Pilsley. The land is grassed for grazing and is not used for any crops. The Agricultural Land Classification of the land is part Grade 2 – very good quality, where the access track is proposed and Grade 4 – poor quality, where the BESS is proposed.”

“Access into the site is taken from Hallgate Lane to the south east. A track will be formed and extend adjacent to the field boundary and be approx. 1100m in length. Properties on Hallgate Lane will be located in close proximity to the proposed access.”

Officer report

Planning history

No relevant planning history was identified for the site.

“Relevant Planning History (not the full site history)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional approval because the energy and environmental benefits outweighed identified landscape, heritage, agricultural and other harm.

“The development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. This harm must be weighed against the public benefits. In this case, officers consider that the benefits in terms of energy security and progress toward Net Zero outweigh the less than substantial harm, which is considered at the lower end, due to the wider context within which the site is viewed and the separation distances involved, as discussed in the main body…”

“Overall, officers conclude that the benefits of this proposal clearly outweigh the harm to the landscape character and any other harm identified in this report. Subject to the imposition of conditions, the proposal would not conflict with local and national planning policy.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

Thirteen residents objected over fire, noise, traffic, ecology, landscape, consultation and other impacts, while 24 supported the energy and environmental benefits.

“Cyber security risk from remote operation • Potential harm to assistance dogs from high frequency noise [officer note: no evidence has been submitted that this is a known issue from BESS] • Potential harm to protected species and habitats, insufficient biodiversity net gain, and lighting impacts • Highway safety concerns, including HGV suitability, congestion, pedestrian risks, and cumulative traffic impacts near schools • Visual harm to countryside and landscape…”

“The LPA has undertaken direct consultation with adjoining residents and placed 3 site notices adjacent to the application site. The Council has no control over the applicants consultation process] • Mining of battery components undermining renewable argument • Lack of national safety standards • Too close to village • Harmful to wellbeing of residents • Proposal may negatively impact the local schools evacuation route [officer note: the proposal will not impact Rupert Street…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from a ward member, two supporters and a speaker on behalf of the applicant.

Committee discussion

Members discussed battery recycling, community engagement, biodiversity and rural economy benefits, and concluded that the benefits outweighed the harm.

“Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. This included Local Plan Policy SDC 10, concerning renewable and low carbon energy generation, and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 8(c), concerning adapting to climate change.”

“Committee discussed the application. Some Members raised concerns regarding the recycling of batteries across the 40-year lifetime of the scheme. However, it was felt that for the proposal the benefits outweighed the harm. Some Members suggested that the benefits extended to positives for the rural economy. Some Members suggested that it would be good to see further community engagement and as much biodiversity net gain (BNG) as possible but overall supported the proposal.”

Minutes

The vote

Members moved and seconded approval in line with the officer recommendation, and the motion was approved.

“At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor F Petersen and Councillor W Jones moved and seconded a Motion to approve the application, in line with officer recommendation, subject to conditions. The Motion was put to a vote and…”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was conditionally approved, with the final wording of the conditions delegated to the planning manager.

“RESOLVED – That planning permission be conditionally approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report with the final wording of the conditions delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Manager).”

Minutes