Micro energy storage project at Scarff Way, West Haddon

What was proposed

The application proposed constructing and operating a micro energy storage project with battery cabinets, an interface cabinet and fencing.

“The proposed development will be grounded on a concrete slab with four 2.1m tall and 1.150m wide battery storage cabinets as well as a gird interface cabinet. These will then be enclosed by a 2.4m wooden inset panels wire mesh fence.”

“The overall unit will have a height of 2.455m, a width of 6.130 and a depth of 3.905.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no directly relevant planning history for the proposal.

“There is no planning history directly relevant to the proposal.”

Officer report

Objections and comments

Residents raised concerns about character, neighbour amenity, flooding, highways, construction, ecology, consultation, alternative sites, conservation and land ownership.

“Below is a summary of the third party and neighbour responses received at the time of writing this report.”

“Impact on the local character • Impact on neighbour amenity • Flooding • Highway Safety • Impact of Construction • Applications consultation • Environmental and Ecology Impact • Alternative Locations • Impact on conservation area • Land Ownership…”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council representative, a resident and a ward councillor spoke against the proposal, while the applicant’s agent spoke in support.

The committee debate

The committee was asked to refuse because the siting and proximity to properties would harm the landscape setting and neighbouring amenity.

“It was proposed by Councillor Adrian Cartwright and seconded by Councillor Phil Bignell that application 2025/3758/FULL be refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation, on the grounds that the application, by reason of its siting and proximity to existing properties, would create an unacceptable impact on the character of the local landscape setting and an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties, and was therefore contrary to policy ENV9 of the…”

Minutes

The vote

The refusal motion received six votes, no votes against and two abstentions, so it was carried.

“Daventry District and Countryside Part 2 Local Plan. The motion was put to the vote with six votes cast in favour of the proposal, no votes cast against with two abstentions, therefore the motion was carried, and the application was refused.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because the structure would erode the rural sense of place and nearby dwellings would suffer unacceptable amenity harm from perceived fire risk.

“(1) That application 2025/3758/FULL be refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation for the following reason:”

“By virtue of the proposed development’s siting and visual appearance, it is considered the proposed structure would have an adverse impact on the local character by eroding the rural sense of place when approaching the village. Furthermore, the proposed development’s close proximity to nearby dwellings is considered to result in unacceptable harm to residential amenity through the increased perception of fire risk.”

Minutes