Battery storage system at Greenfields, Thorney Edge Road, Bagnall

What was proposed

The application sought a battery energy storage system, substation, underground cabling, fencing, landscaping and associated infrastructure for a 40-year period.

“This is a full planning application which seeks consent for the construction of a Battery Energy Storage System and substation with associated infrastructure and works.”

“Battery storage facility comprising a series of linked battery containers (or containers of similar appearance) measuring approximately 2.6m high, 1.7m wide and 9.3m long; ▪ Inverter/transformer stations, measuring approximately 2.9m high, 2.4m wide and 6m long, with cooling equipment and associated electrical infrastructure distributed evenly across the site, housed within containers; ▪ Substation facility up to approximately 13.1m in height but constructed at a reduced…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 9.74-hectare rural site contains hedgerows, public rights of way and nearby electricity infrastructure, including the Cellarhead substation.

“The site is predominantly rural in character, yet the area also contains several notable man- made features. These include overhead electricity transmission lines, the Cellarhead National Grid Substation, multiple agricultural holdings with associated barns and buildings, as well as residential developments located to the west and south.”

“There are several public rights of way and field access points both within and surrounding the application site. Access to the site is currently available from Thorney Edge Road to the northwest and from Greenfields Farm to the north. The field network is defined by hedgerows interspersed with tree planting, contributing to the rural character of the area. The site itself is generally flat, with a gentle slope from north to south.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals included refused golf course schemes, a solar and storage application, and several nearby energy developments that were approved, refused or allowed on appeal.

“SMD/2022/0574 - LAND ADJACENT TO ARMSHEAD FARM , Armshead Road , Werrington , Staffordshire - Erection of storage containers, support infrastructure and security fencing for battery energy storage facility along with landscaping and all associated works – Appeal allowed 23/09/2024”

“SMD/2024/0019 - Land at , Newfields Farm , Rownall Road , Wetley Rocks , Staffordshire , ST9 0BS - Development of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with ancillary infrastructure, security fence, access, landscaping and biodiversity enhancements, to provide balancing services to the local electricity grid – Refused 27/09/2024 and Appeal Withdrawn 14/07/2025”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because substantial energy, biodiversity, policy and location benefits were considered to outweigh Green Belt, landscape and other harm.

“The application site lies within the Green Belt, and it has been concluded, that the development would represent inappropriate development. This is because it does not meet any of the exceptions for development in the Green Belt, including the criteria for grey belt. The development would fail to preserve openness and conflicts with the purposes of including the land in the Green Belt.”

“When considered together, the policy support, along with the environmental, social and economic benefits of the development are considered to be substantial. It is therefore considered that there are other considerations which would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other harm identified including landscape harm.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, flood, environmental health, wildlife and fire consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while parish councils and CPRE raised concerns.

“SCC Definitive Map and Spatial Information Officer Response dated 22.11.2024 The following should be brought to the attention of the applicant and noted in the planning consent if granted: Public Footpath No.60 Cheddleton Parish runs across the application site, along the northern boundary, through the area proposed for the attenuation basin, and may be obstructed by the proposals.”

“SMDC Environmental Health Officer Response dated 06.02.2026 Environmental Health do not object to the applicated based on the revised submission but raise concerns about the significant number of BESS sites already approved for this area. It would be preferable for already approved sites to be constructed and operated in order that their actual impacts are known or in situ supporting assessment submitted.”

Officer report

Objections received

Fifty-eight objections raised concerns about size, Green Belt loss, traffic, fire risk, noise, pollution, wildlife, landscape, farming and cumulative effects.

“Development could affect P.R.O.W Cheddleton footpath 60 ▪ Size and negative impact ▪ Impact on wildlife and habitat ▪ Loss of green belt – inappropriate development, harm to openness, should be built on only in special circumstances, should be protected at all costs ▪ Traffic on narrow heavy road – not suitable for HGVs ▪ Fire risk, explosions, thermal runway, toxic clouds and risk to public safety – examples of incidents elsewhere ▪ Noise pollution and disruption ▪…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application and the principal planner spoke in support.

What members debated

Members debated excavation traffic, cumulative effects, visual mitigation, emergency access, biodiversity, conditions and whether fire safety arrangements were sufficient.

“Members discussed the amount of material to be removed from the site and the cumulative impact of the scheme. Consideration was given to the potential effects on the local road network, as well as the mitigation measures to limit visual impact and the provision of emergency access points.”

“Some members expressed concern that the Fire and Rescue Service may not be fully satisfied with aspects of the proposed development. In particular, issues were raised regarding the separation distances between containers, the adequacy of emergency access arrangements and the consideration of prevailing wind conditions.”

Minutes

The vote

A proposal to approve the application was moved and seconded but was lost.

“(Proposed by Holmes and seconded by Councillor Wilkinson)”

“(A proposal to approve the application had been moved by Councillor Johnson and seconded by Councillor Hoptroff but was lost)”

Minutes

Why it was deferred

The committee deferred the application for further information about fire safety, emergency access, cumulative effects, on-site material dispersal and reducing conditions.

“That the application be deferred for further information to be provided regarding: -”

“- Emergency access to the site and fire safety which satisfied the National Fire Chiefs Council - Consideration of cumulative impacts - Feasibility of the dispersal of material onsite rather than offsite - Provision of further details to reduce the number of / need for conditions e.g. CEMP, LEMP and DEMP”

Minutes