Battery storage facility at Land North West of Barnett Wood Lane, Ashtead
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Mole Valley Development Management Committee on 1 Jul 2026.
No officer report was published for this decision; this summary is from the committee minutes.
What was proposed
The application sought to vary a condition of an existing permission for a battery energy storage facility, cabling, access track, landscaping and security fencing, to allow changes to the layout and technology.
“MO/2026/00340 Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission MO/2024/1544 for the installation of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility, underground cabling, access track, landscaping, biodiversity enhancement and ancillary infrastructure and equipment, security fence and gates to allow changes to the layout and technology.”
Minutes
Who spoke
Members heard from a representative of a residents' association and then from the applicant.
“Members heard from Alan Bradley of the Ashtead Residents’ Association. They then heard from Mark Rowcroft, the applicant.”
Minutes
Visual impact concerns
Several members raised concerns about the visual impact of taller batteries; officers said the batteries could be painted to reduce the impact and the surrounding land would be used for landscaping.
“In the discussion that followed several Members raised concerns about the visual impact on the landscape the new taller batteries would have. The Officer stated although there would be an additional impact, the new batteries could be painted in a suitable colour which would diminish the impact and therefore on balance it was deemed acceptable. The Planning Manager added that the development area remained the same and the land around the batteries was not for development.”
Minutes
A member's condition request
A member asked whether a condition could require written confirmation of the sub-station connection before work started, fearing an unused eyesore; officers said such a condition would not meet the tests for reasonableness and necessity.
“A Member questioned whether a condition could be added to the application that the development could not commence until a written legal standing had been received confirming the connection to the sub-station. The Member was concerned the facility would be built creating an eyesore and then not be used. The Planning Manager referred to the six tests for conditions and deemed that a condition of this nature would not be considered “reasonable” or “necessary” at this stage.”
Minutes
Vote and decision
The vote to approve the application as recommended, with the additional information in the addendum, was carried, 9 in favour, 2 against and 1 abstention.
“After the discussion, the Chairman proposed a motion to approve the application as per the officer’s recommendation with the additional information contained in the addendum. (NB. Counted vote on the decision of the Committee – 9 in favour, 2 against, 1 abstentions) RESOLVED: That permission be GRANTED in respect of application no. MO/2026/00340 as recommended.”
Minutes
Sources
- Mole Valley Development Management Committee minutes, 1 July 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Mole Valley's committee minutes. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Council
- Mole Valley
- Date
- Wednesday 1 July 2026
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Vote
- 9 for, 2 against, 1 abstained
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Mole Valley committee decisions →
Source: Plota analysis of the minutes.
This committee's year
42 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.