Battery storage system at Land off Lower Road, Garsington

A large battery storage system

The application sought permission for a 100 megawatt battery energy storage system, with cabling to a nearby substation, on a site within the green belt.

“The application was for a 100 megawatts battery energy storage system (BESS) with associated access, landscaping and cable connection. The proposal was located within a site referred to as land off Lower Road.”

“The site edge includes the B480 which would be the route for the cabling connection to the Cowley substation. The site was approximately 1.2km from the Cowley substation, 0.7km southwest of Garsington. The whole site sits within the Green Belt. The proposal would include modular battery units, supporting infrastructure, concrete access surface, storage areas and safety equipment.”

Minutes

Not grey belt, and visually harmful

National policy supported battery storage as part of reaching net zero, but officers found the site did not qualify as grey belt and would bring tall industrial structures into open countryside.

“National and local planning policy support renewable and low carbon energy development and the government paper, Clean Power 2030 Action Plan identified BESS as necessary infrastructure for achieving net zero by 2030. The development plan does not allocate sites for renewable energy and proposals would need to be considered against the whole policy framework.”

“The proposal would introduce industrial structures into the open countryside, the tallest of which (the transformers) would be 6.76m tall and would be visible from certain vantage points. The batteries themselves whilst not as tall were in greater number and coverage. The Council’s opinion was that the proposal would introduce tall structures of an industrial character into a predominantly open and highly visible field within the countryside.”

Minutes

Officers recommended refusal

Officers concluded the harm to the green belt's openness was significant, that very special circumstances did not apply, and recommended refusal.

“The National Planning Policy Framework and policy STRAT 6 advise that very special circumstances would not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt was clearly outweighed by other considerations. The officer stated that the harm to the landscape and the Green Belt, including openness and urban sprawl was significant and as such the tests for very special circumstances were not met.”

“The officer concluded that the proposed development’s benefits were outweighed by the substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, both spatially and visually, as well as undermining Purpose A of the Green Belt and causing significant adverse effects to the open landscape. As such the proposal was recommended for refusal.”

Minutes

A neighbour and the applicant's agent spoke

A neighbour spoke in objection and a representative of the applicant spoke in support of the application.

Members queried safety and green belt status

Members queried fire safety, noise, flood risk and why the site was not grey belt, and were told the noise and flood concerns had been addressed but the green belt harm remained.

“The committee asked for clarification on issues relating to fire safety and noise. The Committee were advised that the application was accompanied by an Outline Energy Storage System Safety Management Plan and a Fire Strategy Plan. Oxfordshire Fire Service were consulted and they declined to comment.”

“The committee requested that the officer clarify the reasons as to why the site was not considered to be grey belt and why very special circumstances don’t apply. The Committee were informed that the Oxford Green Belt Study (updated May 2024) identified the site as being within parcel 15-A, which was described as Green Belt that positively contributed to Purpose A in terms of preventing urban sprawl.”

Minutes

Permission refused on a vote

Members agreed the harm to the green belt outweighed the need for more energy storage, and a motion to refuse was carried on the vote.

“The committee agreed that while there was a need for more energy storage systems, the level of harm caused by this proposal would be significant. The committee acknowledged that there were no special circumstances that would justify this proposal within the Green Belt.”

“A motion, moved and seconded, to refuse planning application P24/S3557/FUL, was carried on being put to the vote.”

Minutes

Refused over green belt harm

The application was refused for being inappropriate development in the green belt and causing significant harm to the open landscape.

“RESOLVED: to refuse planning application P24/S3557/FUL due to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the significant adverse effects to the open landscape character.”

Minutes