Battery energy storage system at Watling Street, Radlett

The site and surroundings

The site was a 3.6-hectare agricultural field in the Green Belt, east of Watling Street, near homes, schools, heritage assets and a public right of way.

“The application site consists of a rectangular shaped field within agricultural grazing use comprising 3.6 hectares of land. It is located to the east of Watling Street within the Metropolitan Green Belt.”

“There is an existing vehicle crossing off Watling Street that provides gated access into the site. A high voltage electricity pylon is located within the site behind the existing gate. High voltage electricity lines currently pass over the site, near the southern boundary with a further pylon located near the easternmost corner of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An environmental assessment screening opinion for a battery storage system was issued on 4 September 2025, confirming that an environmental impact assessment was not required.

“As set out in the history section below, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion was requested from the Council. A formal response from the Council issued on 4 September 2025 confirmed that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required to be submitted in support of the proposal.”

“Reference number Description Date and outcome 25/1067/EI1 Request for screening opinion (Environmental Assessment - Screening) for a Battery Energy Storage System 4 September 2025 Response Given…”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because they considered the site grey belt, the energy need demonstrable, the location sustainable, and the effects manageable with conditions and a legal agreement.

“In accordance with Paragraph 155 of the NPPF, the development would fall to be grey-belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes, when taken together, of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. It is considered that there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed and the development would be in a sustainable location.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A local resident spoke against the application, the applicant spoke in support, and a community advocate spoke against it.

What members debated

Members questioned the Grey Belt assessment, unmet need, town separation, fire access, safety, noise, renewable resources, agricultural land, employment and environmental effects.

“-PL 57- Members were concerned about the distance between the proposal to schools / residential buildings and fire risk mitigation measures. They also queried the Grey Belt designation of the site and expressed concern regarding potential merging of towns Radlett and Borehamwood. It was also asked whether sufficient renewable resources had been proposed through the application.”

“Members maintained concerns regarding the loss of agricultural land, lack of employment benefits, the unspecified technology to be used, lack of an additional access for fire as suggested by Herts Fire and Rescue. They were also concerned that the noise level was considered to be 15 decibels above the recommended noise level.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because Green Belt harm was not outweighed and concerns about noise, safety, sensitive receptors, pollution, contamination and consultation remained unresolved.

“-PL 59- It was proposed by: Councillor D Lambert, seconded by Councillor C Clapper that the application be REFUSED on all grounds, based on: Green Belt harm not outweighed by the benefits, insufficient assessment of residential amenity impacts (noise), public safety and emergency response concerns unresolved, inadequate consideration of sensitive receptors, pollution and contamination risk not robustly addressed and decision-making based on incomplete or unclear consultation…”

“RESOLVED that the application be REFUSED on all grounds, based on: Green Belt harm not outweighed by the benefits, insufficient assessment of residential amenity impacts (noise), public safety and emergency response concerns unresolved, inadequate consideration of sensitive receptors, pollution and contamination risk not robustly addressed and decision-making based on incomplete or unclear consultation evidence.”

Minutes