99.4MW battery storage system at Land At Woodtown, East-the-Water

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the proposal necessarily countryside-based, supported by energy policy, and acceptable subject to conditions.

“Planning Balance and Conclusion Your Officer has had regard to relevant appeal caselaw – related to Battery Storage Developments approved on appeal. This confirms that development of this nature is accepted to be necessarily restricted to a countryside location and constitutes low‑carbon development, for the purposes of Local Plan policy and the provisions contained in the NPPF.”

“On this basis, the proposal also benefits from policy support within the Local Plan, specifically Policies ST07 and ST16, which provide a positive framework for low‑carbon energy development in appropriate countryside locations.”

Officer report

Main issues considered

The assessment considered countryside location, agricultural land, landscape, heritage, residential amenity, highways, drainage, ecology and fire safety.

“Main Planning Considerations: Principle of Development 2. Agricultural Land Classification 3. Design and Impact on Character and Appearance 4. Impact upon Landscape a. Visual Impact Assessment b. Cumulative Landscape Impacts c. Historic England (HE) Comment 5. Heritage and Historic Environment 6. Impact upon Residential Amenity 7. Access, Parking and Highways 8. Flood Risk and Drainage 9. Impact on Wildlife and Ecology a. Ecological Impact b. Biodiversity Net Gain 10.”

Officer report

Objections and support

There were 64 objection letters, one neutral representation and no support letters, with concerns about need, landscape, noise, fire, ecology and safety.

“Number of neighbours consulted: Number of letters of support: Number of representations received: Number of neutral representations: Number of objection letters: 64”

“- Inadequate assessment of noise impacts and amenity, both as a result of the operational requirements of the facility, along with the potential disruption and noise caused by traffic. - Concerns surrounding fire risk and public safety, noting the application does not adequately address the issues regarding fire safety and battery storage developments. - Potential for adverse and harmful effects upon nearby residents and their private amenities.”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

Two members of the public spoke against the application, two speakers supported it, and Councillor Elliot spoke as ward member.

The committee debate

Members debated agricultural land, landscape, heritage, residential amenity, road capacity, emergency access, noise and the proposal’s wider benefits.

“Councillor Kenneally challenged the classification of the land, noting that the Government defines Grade 3A land as good-quality and 3B as moderate agricultural land. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the built element of the proposal would be on Grade 3A land.”

“Officers requested clarity on the use of DM01A (residential amenity harm) if cited as a refusal reason. The Head of Planning & Building Control suggested that the concerns raised related more to the visual amenity which would be covered by the wider landscape concerns and urged against this policy being a reason for refusal.”

Minutes

What the committee decided

The committee refused the application because it considered the harm arising from the proposal outweighed its benefits.

“That the application be refused on the grounds that the harm arising from the proposal outweighs its benefits, with reference to policies ST14(d,g), ST15(a,b), DM08(a), DM07, ST16, and the relevant paragraphs of the NPPF.”

Minutes