Battery storage facility at Lands located approximately 245m east of No. 164 Dooish Road, and approximately 26m east of the Drumquin substation

A battery storage facility

The application proposed installing and operating a battery energy storage system with a substation compound, fencing, access tracks and security cameras.

“LA10/2024/1111/F - Installation and operation of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Facility, associated substation compound and ancillary works including boundary fencing, internal access tracks, pole mounted security cameras and associated works.”

Minutes

Officers recommended approval

Officers recommended approval, saying key concerns about fire safety, hazardous substances and noise had been fully considered and no statutory consultee had objected.

“The Senior Planning Officer outlined the background and the reasons for recommending that the above application be granted planning permission.”

“The Senior Planning Officer stated that some of the key concerns raised by objectors related to fire safety, thermal runaway, hazardous substances, emergency response, air quality, ecology, landscape impact and noise and these had been fully considered within the Planning Committee Report.”

Minutes

A significant number of objections

Further representations from objectors were received after the report was published, raising no new issues beyond the recurring themes already considered.

“The Senior Planning Officer advised Members that since the publication of the report: • A representation had been received from an objector on 18 July 2026; • A representation had been received from an objector on 20 July 2026; and • Two representations had been received from objectors on 21 July 2026.”

“The Senior Planning Officer advised that these representations raised no new issues that had not already been considered. He stated that a significant number of objections had been received in relation to this application and while the issues raised varied in detail, they broadly focused on a number of recurring themes which were reflected in both the written representations and the recent submissions received in advance of the meeting.”

Minutes

An objector's case against the scheme

An objector said the facility threatened a nearby village, raised fire and contamination risks, and that residents had not been properly consulted.

“In her opinion, Drumquin was becoming a “sacrifice zone”; • There were 200 objections on the Planning Portal in relation to the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) facility; • She had serious concerns about the safety of lithium battery storage facilities, particularly the risk of fire, the difficulty of extinguishing such fires, and the potential release of toxic substances; • In her opinion, the potential risk of fire and release of hazardous substances could…”

“In her opinion, Members did not have the full chemical, mineral or full hazardous substances information relevant to this application; • She highlighted that, in her opinion, the Emergency Response Plan was out of date, with reference being made in it to Omagh Hospital being a receiving hospital in the case of an emergency; • She expressed concerns regarding the potential for contamination of nearby rivers and the impacts this would have on water quality, farmland,…”

Minutes

Supporters' case for the scheme

Supporters said the site suited existing electricity infrastructure, extensive consultation had taken place, safety bodies raised no objections, and asked members to endorse the recommendation.

Fire safety and consultee responses

Officers said the risk of battery fire had been fully considered, with detection and suppression systems in place, and that no expert consultee had found the proposal unacceptable.

“In response to comments from the speakers, the Senior Planning Officer stated that: • The potential risk of battery fire and thermal runaway had been fully considered within the report; • The Emergency Response Plan considered fire explosion gases, and incorporated systems of fire detection, suppression systems and container separations; • HSENI and NIFRS had raised no objections to the proposal; • Batteries were classified under REACH (Registration, Evaluation,…”

“In response to queries from Members, the Lead Planner and Senior Planning Officer stated that: • While a catastrophic event was considered highly unlikely, extensive technical information had been submitted with the application and mitigation measures had been incorporated; • Statutory consultees with expertise in ecology had been consulted and their recommendations would be contained within the decision notice, therefore, Officers considered that no additional conditions…”

Minutes

Deferred for safety bodies to attend

Given the level of public concern, a member proposed deferring the application so that fire, health and safety and environment agencies could attend a future meeting; this was agreed unanimously.

“A Member stated that given the level of public concern about the proposal, he was of the opinion that the application should be deferred until the September Planning Committee meeting to allow relevant statutory consultees, including HSENI, NIFRS and NIEA, to be invited to attend, and he formally proposed this course of action. This proposal was seconded by another Member.”

“RESOLVED: On the proposal of Councillor McElduff, seconded by Councillor McClaughry, and unanimously agreed, that the above application be deferred until the September Planning Committee meeting to allow relevant statutory consultees, including HSENI, NIFRS and NIEA, to be invited to attend. (”

Minutes