Battery energy storage system at Frenchs Road, Walpole St Andrew

What was proposed

A battery storage system would occupy two sites, store electricity for peak demand, operate for 30 years and include substations, fencing, landscaping and drainage.

“This application is for the installation of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) at White House Farm on two sites, both sides of French’s Road, approx. 300m to the west of Walpole Bank. The larger/northern site (Parcel A) comprises approx. 3.5ha of agricultural land and the smaller/southern site (Parcel B) approx. 0.35ha which is proposed to accommodate the associated transformers and telecommunications mast.”

“The BESS would store excess electricity at times of low demand and then release it back into the grid when required at peak times. It would be rated at up to 200MW and would therefore be capable of serving the needs of between 200,000 – 400,000 homes for one hour if required.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The countryside site comprises grade 2 arable and grass land near Walpole Substation, with residential properties, flood zones and tidal hazard mapping nearby.

“The sites are located outside of the development boundary for Walpole St Andrew/Walpole St Peter/Walpole Marsh and is therefore in an area classed as ‘countryside’. The locality is dominated by Walpole Substation and its associated infrastructure including pylons and overhead cabling plus other energy related development. French’s Road comprises a mix of sporadic residential properties and agricultural buildings on the northern frontage.”

“The sites are arable and grass land respectively, classed as grade 2 agricultural land. Parcel A lies mostly in Flood Zone 1, and Parcel B in Flood Zone 2 of EA mapping, but both fall…”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected because homes were nearby, while statutory consultees raised no objections subject to conditions covering highways, drainage, flooding, ecology, noise, archaeology and safety.

“Walpoles Parish Council: OBJECT – Due to closeness to existing homes.”

“Environmental Health & Housing – Community Safety & Neighbourhood Nuisance: NO OBJECTION subject to conditions regarding acoustic fencing installation, mitigation measures contained in the Noise Impact Assessment, lighting details and hours of construction and deliveries as per the construction transport management plan.”

Officer report

Public views

Four items of correspondence objected over homes, farmland, views, character, safety, cumulative effects and construction, while one supported substantial screening.

“A total of FOUR items of correspondence received, OBJECTING on the following summarised grounds:”

“Impact on the nearby residences • Food security – loss of high-grade agricultural land • Loss of views/outlook • Impact upon character of this locality • Devaluation of property • Safety • Cumulative impact • Construction period impact and safety on road network…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector and a supporter addressed the committee, and the ward member supported concerns about siting the facility near homes.

Members’ discussion

Members raised concerns about residential amenity, noise, appearance, landscaping, fire safety and flooding, leading to stronger planting and fire-plan review requirements.

“Several Committee Members echoed concerns about residential amenity, noise, and visual impact.”

“The Committee also questioned the adequacy of landscaping, noise mitigation, fire safety, and flood risk measures. Officers confirmed that conditions would require robust landscaping with mature trees, acoustic fencing, and a battery safety management plan reviewed in consultation with the fire service.”

Minutes

The vote

The recommendation to approve with amended conditions was carried by 10 votes to 2, with 1 abstention.

“The Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to approve the application subject to amendments to conditions, including requirements for mature evergreen planting, a mechanism and timeframe for reviewing the fire safety management plan (5 years, 7 years and 10 years from the commencement of use and thereafter every 5 years), and retention of landscaping for the lifetime of the development and, after having been put to the vote was carried…”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application as recommended, with mature evergreen planting, landscaping retained for the development’s lifetime and fire-plan review arrangements.

“RESOLVED: That the application be approved as recommended, subject to amendments to conditions, including requirements for mature evergreen planting, a mechanism and timeframe for reviewing the fire safety management plan, and retention of landscaping for the lifetime of the development.”

Minutes