Battery energy storage units at Bishampton Solar Energy Park Broad Lane, Bishampton

What was proposed

The application proposed battery storage units, transformers, inverters, grid connection infrastructure and related development within a secure compound.

“Proposal: Installation of battery energy storage units, transformers, inverters, grid connection infrastructure & ancillary development within a secure compound.”

Officer report

Earlier committee consideration

The application had been deferred so the applicant could explore an alternative site because of pollution, fire-risk and access concerns.

“The Planning Officer outlined the application which was deferred at the August meeting to require the applicant to explore option 1 further, as an alternative to the one proposed given the constraints of option 4 specifically relating to the pollution control into the brook, and the fire risk and access.”

Minutes

Flooding and site choice

The drainage response identified the proposed compound as being in flood zone 1 and at low surface-water-flood risk, making it the preferred location.

“The location of the proposed BESS compound lies in flood zone 1 and an area at low risk of surface water flooding – which is the best location possible in terms of flooding.”

“The location now being considered, following the deferral in committee, has existing overland flood flows / surface water flooding associated with it.”

Officer report

Officer assessment

Updated habitat gain was 23.35%, with hedgerow and watercourse gains unchanged, and officers considered the biodiversity benefit significant despite the reduction.

“As set out in the Committee report, due to the slight increase in hardstanding to accommodate the additional access track, the BNG has reduced slightly insofar as the habitat units are concerned. The report states that the reduction is from +30.60% to +30%. However, following a more detailed assessment of the BNG, the habitats units reduce further to +23.35% as a result on the reduction in grassland surrounding the BESS compound.”

“Whilst there is a reduction in habitat units, these all still substantially exceed the 10% BNG, which is a statutory requirement. This should still be considered a significant benefit of the development in the planning balance.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council maintained objections about safety, fire, flooding, nuisance and environmental effects, while six further resident objections questioned alternative-site assessment.

“The Parish Council maintain their original objections on the grounds of safety and fire risk, flood risk, nuisance, and the environmental impact on water and wildlife.”

“The application does nothing further to mitigate the unsuitability of the site or it's safety and environmental risks, nor its inherent nuisance to neighbours and community.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council representative and another speaker opposed approval, while two speakers supported it.

Members’ concerns

Members questioned cabinet spacing, biodiversity, fire-fighting water, access, flooding, pollution, habitats, the brook and the public right of way.

“The Local Member and members of the Planning Committee asked a number of questions to clarify matters including the space between the cabinets following the request from the Fire Authority, the biodiversity net gain, where you go for water after 2 hours if there is a fire and the reasons for choosing this option over the other option.”

“Councillor D B Birch did not feel from his point of view that the fire risks had been adequately addressed. The response received was from the fire protection team and not the fire and rescue service that would attend if a fire occurred and this would place a huge strain on the service to manage.”

Minutes