Micro energy storage project at Land At London Road, Balderton

What was proposed

The application sought a 200kW energy storage system in a steel battery box enclosed by fencing, on the western side of London Road.

“The application seeks planning permission for a 200kw (800kWhr) Energy Storage System, known as a ‘Battery Box’.”

“The proposed battery box is to be located on the western side of London Road opposite the junction of Belvoir Road.”

Officer report

The site and its surroundings

The site was a grass verge opposite Sainsbury’s and Belvoir Road, with homes to the west and mature trees along their boundary.

“The application relates to an area of grass verge located on London Road in Balderton, to the east of the site on the opposite side of the road is Sainsburys and the turning into Belvoir Road, to the west are residential dwellings, with mature trees lining the boundary between the verge and the houses.”

“In terms of site constraints, the site is located within Flood Zone 1 according to the Environment Agency Flood Maps and in an area at low risk of surface water flooding.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection, environmental health found noise acceptable with correct orientation, while the parish council raised noise concerns.

“Balderton Parish Council – Concerns of noise generated and whether this has been tested in isolation and would have liked to have seen highways and environmental health submissions.”

“NSDC Environmental Health Officer – No objections. The noise assessment provided with this application indicates noise will not be an issue. Noise from the battery box appears directional, and therefore installation should ensure correct orientation with respect to the houses located to the east of the site.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, the parish council representative, the applicant and the local ward member spoke, with the first, second and fourth speaking against.

Members’ debate

Members questioned the visual assessment, open-space loss, fire risks, toxic gases and tonal noise, especially because homes and busy roads were nearby.

“Members considered the application, and it was commented that there had not been any evaluation of the visual impact that this would cause. It was commented that this land was a green gateway and was a designated open space. Balderton had a short fall of over 200 acres of open space. The proposed units would equate to two, twenty-foot shipping containers which would be intrusive in size.”

“Members referred to the National Chief Fire document and commented that the proposal did fall under those guidelines for commercial industrial regulations. The guidelines also recommended a 25-30 metre distance from residential homes; the report had detailed 27-metres, which had been sited closer than the originally proposed 30-metres. The gardens to the residential homes were used by the homeowner and there would be no warning should the battery storage units caught fire.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee unanimously refused the application, and a recorded vote followed because the decision went against the officer recommendation.

“A vote was taken, and the application was unanimously refused.”

“In accordance with paragraph 18.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Permission was refused contrary to officers’ recommendation, with visual impact and safety given as the reasons.

“AGREED moved by Councillor S Forde and seconded by Councillor M Shakeshaft (unanimously) that contrary to Officer recommendation Planning Permission be refused, for the reasons: visual impact and safety.”

Minutes