Battery storage system at Land To The Southeast Of Remembrance Way, Kegworth

What was proposed

The application proposed a 99-megawatt battery storage system operating for 40 years to balance electricity supply to the National Grid.

“The proposed development comprises a 99 megawatt (MW) BESS which will provide energy balancing services to the National Grid. A BESS operates by taking electricity from the grid at times of low demand, storing it in batteries, and releasing it back to the grid when demand is high. Whilst the proposed development is not for the production of renewable energy, it will mainly use energy from renewable sources and can balance energy production with need.”

“The applicant has provided correspondence from National Grid Electricity Distribution (NGED) which confirms their grid offer and this has been accepted by the applicant. It is considered that such correspondence demonstrates that a grid connection is available where the proposed development would connect (being to the Kegworth substation within the confines of Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station).”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for an agricultural building on the site was withdrawn in June 2021.

“- 21/00348/AGP – Erection of an agricultural building – Withdrawn 4 th June 2021.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

The parish council, a footpaths association and eleven third parties objected, while consultees generally raised no objections subject to conditions.

“The following summary of representations is provided. All responses from statutory consultees and third parties are available to view in full on the Council’s website.”

“East Midlands Airport Safeguarding. Environment Agency. Leicestershire County Council – Archaeology. Leicestershire County Council – Ecology. Leicestershire County Council – Highways and Footpaths Authority. Leicestershire County Council – Lead Local Flood Authority. Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service. NWLDC Environmental Protection. Rushcliffe Borough Council.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council chair, the agent and the ward member addressed the committee, raising concerns or supporting the proposal.

What members debated

Members discussed flooding, visual impact, energy security, site suitability and whether the development offered a clear benefit to the local community.

“In determining the application, discussions were had regarding the flood risks, visual impact, the importance of energy security for the future and the suitability of the site. The need for energy storage facilities was acknowledged, however the Committee felt there was no clear benefit from the development for the local community. Some members felt that the visual impact on the landscape was too great and therefore a concern.”

Minutes

How members voted

The motion to permit the application under the officer recommendation was lost, and the alternative refusal motion was carried.

“The Officers recommendation to permit the application was moved by Councillor R Morris and seconded by Councillor R Blunt.”

“Chair’s initials Motion to permit in accordance with officer's recommendation (Motion) Councillor Russell Boam For Councillor Ray Morris For Councillor Dave Bigby Against Councillor Richard Blunt For Councillor Morgan Burke For Councillor Rachel Canny Against Councillor Doug Cooper Against Councillor Dr Terri Eynon Against Councillor John Legrys Against Councillor Peter Moult Against Councillor Andrew Woodman For Rejected Motion to refuse on the grounds of contrary to…”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because its detrimental visual impact would fail to safeguard and enhance the appearance and character of the landscape.

“Councillor D Bigby moved that the application be refused on the grounds that the proposed would be detrimental to visual impact and would fail to safeguard and enhance the appearance and character of the landscape, contrary to criterion (i) of Policy S3 and criterion (b) of Policy Cc1 of the adopted Local Plan. It was seconded by Councillor J Legrys.”

“The application be refused on the grounds of the detrimental visual impact and would fail to safeguard and enhance the appearance and character of the landscape, contrary to criterion (i) of Policy S3 and criterion (b) of Policy Cc1 of the adopted Local Plan.”

Minutes