Battery energy storage system at Land East Of Carrs Farm, South Hetton

What was proposed

The application proposed a 200MW battery storage facility with 98 containers, a substation, access tracks, landscaping, fencing and underground grid cables.

“Full planning permission is sought for a Battery Energy Storage System including 98 battery containers, a HV step‑up substation, transformers, internal access tracks, security fencing, CCTV, landscaping, biodiversity enhancements and a 400kV underground cable connection. Construction would typically take 12 months via an existing access to Carrs Farm off the road A182, with limited operational visits thereafter from an access at West Lane.”

“Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), associated infrastructure, landscaping, fencing, access tracks, biodiversity net gain and an underground cable corridor to the point of connection at National Grid Hawthorn Pit Substation.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 9.79-hectare site included agricultural land north and south of West Lane, near South Hetton, with a cable corridor crossing several fields.

“The site comprises 9.79 ha of land with 6.16 ha being in agricultural use (subgrade 3b quality) last used as a winter cereal crop. The remainder is a narrow strip of land required for the proposed Grid Connection Corridor that runs through several fields. The site is both to the south and north of West Lane, South Hetton. South Hetton Village is situated to the west of the site and Easington is located approximately 1.9km south east of the site.”

“The proposed site compound is bounded by - Agricultural land to the east - Open agricultural fields and woodland to the south - Carr’s Farm to the west - West Lane to the north 11. The site of the proposed Battery Energy Storage System compound comprises one field, which is defined by hedgerows and tree planting. Overhead powerlines cross the site.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the site, but nearby permissions included substations, battery storage and a solar farm with battery storage.

“There is no relevant site history for the site itself. 35. Beyond the site, planning permission for a new substation, which will connect to the existing substation at Hawthorn Pit was approved in 2023 (Ref DM/22/01663/OUT), followed by the reserved matters application (Ref DM/25/00128/RM), pending consideration and numerous discharge of condition applications in relation to the outline consent.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because strong low-carbon energy policy support and renewable-energy benefits outweighed identified landscape, amenity and heritage harm.

“The proposal has been assessed against the County Durham Plan (CDP), the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and all other relevant material considerations. The main policy for the development is CDP Policy 33 which provides in‑principle support for renewable and low‑carbon infrastructure where impacts are acceptable, and significant weight is given nationally and locally to the delivery of energy storage to support the transition to net zero.”

“On balance, whilst the scheme results in identified landscape, residential amenity and heritage harm, the significant policy support for low-carbon infrastructure and the associated renewable‑energy benefits outweigh the harm and would not result in a policy conflict and the development would mitigate technical impacts.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

Most representations objected, citing safety, landscape, noise, traffic, flooding, pollution, ecology, cumulative effects, farmland loss and inadequate consultation; one supported the scheme.

“Hawthorn Parish Council – Object to the application due to the impact on the surrounding landscape and open countryside, the loss of agricultural land, safety concerns particularly in relation to Fire Risk and Health and Safety and as there are alternative more suitable brownfield sites nearby and in relation to the cumulative impact of Bess and solar farm developments in the local area. 53.”

“Seaham Town Council – Objects due to the loss of agricultural land, the impacts on the environment and wildlife, due to the lack of an EIA, the risk to public safety and health from potential thermal events and release of toxic gases, noise pollution and lack of assessment of noise, increased traffic on rural roads presenting a safety hazard to pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, lack of public consultation or consent from residents for the scheme, lack of long term evidence…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Speakers included representatives of South Hetton Parish Council, Hawthorn Parish Council, the local member, objectors, an independent expert and the applicant’s representative.

Members’ debate

Members discussed safety regulation, firewater and drainage, traffic, cumulative effects, agricultural land and the lasting landscape impact despite mitigation.

“Councillor Potts queried the cumulative impacts of the development, fire water storage, and drainage arrangements. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there was no prescribed cumulative impact threshold, with each application assessed on its own merits. Fire water containment and drainage measures would be secured through planning conditions and agreed with relevant technical consultees.”

“Councillor Schulman referred to the productive nature of the agricultural field and expressed concern regarding the loss of land used for food production. The Senior Planning Officer advised that the site comprised Grade 3B land and therefore did not constitute Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land.”

Minutes

Decision and reasons

The committee refused permission because the landscape and visual harm outweighed the identified benefits and conflicted with relevant County Durham Plan provisions.

“The Planning and Highways Lawyer advised that if Members concluded that the landscape and visual harm outweighed the benefits of the development, refusal could be justified on that basis. Whilst an Inspector may reach a different view of the planning balance, the proposed reason for refusal was capable of being articulated through planning policy.”

“That planning permission be REFUSED on the grounds that the landscape and visual harm arising from the proposal outweighed the identified benefits and conflicted with the relevant provisions of the County Durham Plan.”

Minutes