60MW battery storage system at Land At (Os 6325 6956), Knighton on Teme

What was proposed

The application proposed a 60MW battery energy storage system, related equipment, access points, fencing, tracks and an underground grid connection.

“The proposal seeks provision of a 60MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and associated infrastructure to provide energy balancing services to the national grid.”

“Two access points are proposed. The compound surface would comprise primarily of permeable gravel surface, with the above equipment sitting on raised reinforced concrete foundations. Internal access tracks within the compound will comprise of crushed stone. The compound would be surrounded by a fence. An underground cable would connect the proposed substation to the point of connection, an existing electricity pylon to the northwest of the BESS compound.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal supported renewable-energy targets and its benefits outweighed identified heritage, landscape and agricultural-land harms.

“The proposed development includes substantial public benefits in terms of being able to better regulate the supply of energy in capturing the renewable energy being produced from other sites and the urgent need to secure energy supplies attract substantial weight.”

“Environmental objective – the mitigated harms that would be caused to the local environment in terms of landscape character and visual appearance and to the settings of designated and non-designated heritage assets would be outweighed by the substantial contribution towards addressing climate change and in terms of the identified harms is temporary and reversable. On this basis, modest weight is given to the disbenefits.”

Officer report

What residents said

Most representations opposed the scheme because of its rural setting, visibility, traffic, noise, fire and pollution risks; some supported energy security and food-production security.

“You would be allowing an industrial area in a completely rural setting. • Site sections are misleading. They imply nothing will be visible below the line drawn. The hedge is with gaps and all deciduous. The line drawn does not represent anything like a line of sight. The development will be visible over and through much of the hedge at all times and through it for six months of the year when there are no leaves.”

“There is only a volunteer fire service in Tenbury Wells to fight this. Fire risk and consequent pollution risks including run off from dousing, air pollution, risk of vapour, explosion and ground contamination.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council representative, an objector, the applicant’s representative, the ward member and six other councillors addressed the committee.

How members voted

Councillor D Godwin proposed approval, Councillor P J Cumming seconded it, and members voted unanimously in favour.

“A motion to APPROVE planning permission, in line with officer recommendation, was proposed by Councillor D Godwin, seconded by Councillor P J Cumming and unanimously…”

Minutes

The committee decision

The committee delegated approval of full planning permission, subject to Historic England, publicity, a biodiversity monitoring agreement, conditions and consideration of further representations.

“In the absence of the satisfactory completion of a Legal Agreement, that a decision to REFUSE Full Planning Permission be delegated to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure without referral back to the Northern Area Planning Committee for further consideration.”

Minutes