Battery storage system at Land At Burton Wood Farm, Spring Lane, Lambley

What was proposed

The application proposed a battery energy storage system with 192 battery units, substations, inverters, security equipment, drainage and other infrastructure.

“Planning permission is sought for the installation of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and associated infrastructure. The infrastructure would include a security gate, 12 no. twin skids, a 132kV substation, 14 no. security CCTV camera, 1 no. auxiliary transformer, an attenuation pond, 3 banks of battery units, comprising 192 in total, 24 no. PCSK inverters, 48 no. battery interface cabinets, 1 no. storage container, 2 no. customer switchgears, 1 no.”

“The applicant states that the proposal will provide energy balancing services to the National Grid. It operates by taking excess electricity from the grid at times of low demand, storing it in batteries, and releasing it back to the Grid when demand is high. The applicant states these storage facilities improve the energy efficiency of existing energy production facilities, including from renewables.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The approximately four-hectare site is in the Green Belt and open countryside, with woodland, wildlife, rights of way, heritage assets and homes nearby.

“The site, measuring approximately 4 hectares, is located within the Nottingham and Derby Green Belt. The site is located within Burton Joyce Neighbourhood Plan boundaries and it is on unallocated land, within open countryside.”

“Located close to ancient woodland, as identified on the Local Planning Document Policies Map, the site is also close to a designated Local Wildlife Site, Barrons Plantation, which lies to the south. There is a public footpath within the access road into the site and a bridleway in close proximity. With reference to the Greater Nottingham Landscape Character Assessment, the land falls within the Dumbles Rolling Farmland.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because very special circumstances, including energy security, energy flexibility, alternative-site constraints and biodiversity gain, outweighed the harm.

“As noted in paragraph 160 in the NPPF many renewable energy-related proposals will comprise inappropriate development within green belt-designated land. To allow the grant of planning permission a proposal would need to demonstrate very special circumstances and “such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources.” The NPPF therefore provides for a balancing exercise.”

“Paragraph 153 of the NPPF requires the decision maker to ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Parish councils, a Member of Parliament and residents opposed the scheme over landscape, Green Belt, fire, flooding, noise, ecology, highways and safety, while most technical consultees raised no objection.

“Lambley Parish Council – Proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the green belt and ‘Very Special Circumstances’ do not apply. It would also fail to preserve the character, setting and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area and Listed Buildings. The Dumbles are also a ‘Mature and Distinct Landscape Area’ which should be protected from development.”

“Michael Payne MP – concerns were raised in relation to the impact of the proposal upon the green belt, insufficient fire risk management, flood risk, noise pollution, the impact upon conservation and nature, and the impact upon the local highway.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application for local residents, and the applicant’s senior development manager spoke in support.

An update to members

The committee was told the battery units’ measurements were corrected and that pollution policy was also relevant; further neighbour correspondence had been received.

“The measurements of the battery units stated in paragraph 3.3 of the report were incorrect and should have read that the battery units proposed were 2.795 metres in height, 1.72 metres in width and 7.81 metres in length and that the skids were raised 0.15 metres above ground level.”

“She added that with regards to Section 5 of the report, Policy LPD10 (Pollution) was also relevant as it stated that planning permission would not be granted for development which would result in an unacceptable level of pollution or was likely to result in exposure to sources of pollution or risks to safety.”

Minutes

How members voted

Nine councillors voted for the application and seven against, with no abstentions, following a request for a recorded vote.

“A request for a recorded vote was moved by Councillor Greensmith and seconded by Councillor Smith.”

“Councillors Allan, Ellwood, Ellis, Najuk, Pearson, C Pope, G Pope, Strong and Wilkinson.”

Minutes