400MW battery storage scheme at Land To The North Of Church Road, Wicken

“The application seeks full planning permission for the installation of up to 400MW of a Battery Energy Storage Systems (‘BESS’), comprising battery containers, power conversion systems, transformer enclosures, and a substation building. The BESS is proposed to be operational for a temporary 35-year period and as such a temporary permission is being sought.”

“The key components of the proposal will include: • up to 170 no. Batteries with integrated power conversion system units (Power Control Systems which includes both an inverter and transformer grouped into blocks of 4). • up to 85 no. 5140kVA field transformers (2 per block of 4 no. batteries). • 2 no. 200MVA grid transformers (situated within the on-site substation). • Welfare facilities. • Cabling and connection to the compound and cabling connecting to Church Road.”

“The site is located approximately 2km south-west of Soham and 600 to the east of Wicken. The site straddles the parish boundaries of Wicken and Soham – however the main physical development is located within Soham parish.”

“The site lies in high risk (Flood Zone 3) and medium risk (Flood Zone 2) of flooding and in an area benefiting from flood defences.”

“24/00883/SCREEN Screening Opinion - Battery Energy Storage Scheme Concluded by officers not to be EIA development. October 2024”

“The scheme would provide battery storage for electricity, lessening the pressure on the grid given the recent rise in demand for renewable energies and would assist toward energy security and management. The PPG identifies that Battery Energy Storage Systems enable the use of energy more flexibly and de-carbonise the energy system cost-effectively, deferring or avoiding the need for costly network upgrades…”

“The proposal would cause some harm to the character and appearance of the immediate surrounding area to the site resulting, with visual effects highly noticeable, particularly to those using the public rights of way adjacent to the development, until the landscaping matures which will reduce this effect over time. Therefore, there is some conflict with the development plan.”

“Soham Town Council - 25 February 2026 Soham Town Council agree and support Wicken Parish Council comments regarding proposal. Fire risk - although the risk of a fire is low, the application does not demonstrate the processes with which a fire would be dealt with, neither does it give any assurance that the infrastructure is in place to deal with a large-scale thermal runaway fire if it occurs.”

“Ward Councillor (Cllr Vellacott) - 21 April 2025 Objects for the following reasons; • Does not accord with Policies ENV1 and ENV2 due to landscape harm • Adverse impact on the character of the rural area, contrary to ENV6 • Insufficient ecological surveys contrary to ENV7 • Does not retain existing employment on the site for arable farming purposes, contrary to EMP 1 • Unsuitable access roads for construction contrary to COM7 • Does not accord with Policy SBNP19 of the Soham…”

“CCC Local Highway Authority (Development Management) – 18 March 2026 Has reviewed the Transport Technical Note, which addresses most of the previous concerns (regarding access widths and visibility, and passing places). No objections subject to conditions securing the following;”

“CCC Local Highway Authority (Transport team) - 22 April 2025 The Transport Assessment team raise no objections to this application. With regards to issues surrounding access and visibility, the applicant is referred to the response by the Highways Development Management (HDM) team.”

“In reply to Cllr Bill Hunt, the Major Projects Officer listed the four conditions in the Greenfire Solutions report that had been added to the recommendations, replacing condition 11 in the report. It was agreed that a condition insisting on cyber security measures should be added…”

“Cllr Bill Hunt proposed and Cllr Mark Goldsack seconded that the application be agreed, in line with the officer’s recommendations, as amended. A vote was taken and with 7 votes in favour, 4 votes against and no abstentions the Committee…”