Councillors approve battery energy storage site plans for South Staffordshire by just one vote
Plans for a new battery energy storage site near Wombourne have been approved by just one vote by South Staffordshire councillors – despite concerns about the number of similar developments proposed for the district.
Greenfield Co’s proposals for a 60 MW Battery Storage System (BESS) on land off Flash Lane, Orton, were one of two BESS applications being considered by South Staffordshire Council’s planning committee at its meeting on Tuesday (June 17).
Wombourne Parish Council raised concerns about the proposed development’s location on green belt land and objectors said it would impact on the rural landscape and heritage assets such as the designated Awbridge Canal Bridge and the Canal Conservation Area. But the application was recommended for approval by planning officers ahead of Tuesday’s meeting.
A report to the committee said: “The proposed battery energy storage facility (BESS) meets the definition of grey belt and would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The development would make a significant contribution to energy security, by allowing surplus electricity from the grid to be stored and used when it is most needed.
“Government policy states that storage is needed to avoid waste, reduce the costs of the electricity system and increase reliability. This is apportioned substantial weight; likewise, so is the consideration of the development offering a large uplift in biodiversity.
“National policy advises that developments should be located where impacts are, or can be made, acceptable. It is considered that the location of the proposed development within the undulating landscape, together with the existing and proposed landscaping would result in a development that has a limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt and its purposes.
“Additionally, whilst the proposed development would be located at the site for a number of years, it is reversible and capable of being removed from the site. The removal of the equipment and the remediation of the site to its existing use and condition after the decommissioning can be secured via condition.
“The proposal will include additional planting, which will be secured by condition, and will include a significant increase in biodiversity net gain, including an additional 290m of hedgerow. As such, there will not be a detrimental impact to the rural landscape, once the planting details have been agreed by condition, and the proposal significantly enhances biodiversity.”
Ward councillor Dan Kinsey said on Tuesday he was opposed to the application and told the committee there was a “rash” of BESS proposals in the area. He said: “The rash is directly the fault of the Government, for failing to provide any infrastructure, any sound plan as to the number and geographic location that could accompany these sites.
“Some years ago, I came to speak at what felt to me like the first of these battery storage facilities, proposed for Langley Road in Lower Penn. At that meeting, and quite to my surprise given the policy restrictions and circumstances, that application was refused by this planning committee.
“It was then unfortunately overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. However, the inspector’s comments at the time were that the decision of the committee and the position of the council in refusal was perfectly valid – they accepted that we had good reasons to refuse that site and the planning inspector simply disagreed with the balance and overturned it.
“Refusal of these sites is possible and it is in your hands, given sound reasoning. If the site was refused tonight leave it to the inspector to make that judgement – stand up for our residents who feel under attack by the wide variety of these sites, some of them really spurious and unfortunate.”
Councillor Kinsey also spoke of the impact of the development on its “tranquil” surroundings, which include a canal and walking route. And he highlighted the number of walkers and cyclists who use Flash Lane, which would be the access route for construction traffic.
Committee member Councillor Victor Kelly proposed that the application should be refused permission. He said: “I’ve travelled down that area and the narrowing of the lanes, and having HGVs going down those lanes, would to me be very unacceptable.
“If this is going to affect the Canal and River Trust element of a recreational part, to me that is a good enough ground for us to refuse this. The noise element is another thing because there will be cooling fans – I have been to a site and the fans do make a good humming noise.”
The meeting was told an acoustic fence had been proposed to mitigate noise. Enforceable conditions were also to be put in place in case any noise issues did arise when the site was operating.
Councillor Val Chapman said: “Battery storage facilities do carry inherent risks such as fire or explosion – I have a problem with that. Flash Lane is prone to flooding.
“But my main concern is proximity of multiple industrial facilities in this area could alter the character of the parish. We live in a beautiful area and I think it is rather sad.”
Councillor Kelly’s proposal to reject the application was defeated by just one vote however. The proposals went on to be passed, with four committee members voting for approval, three members against and three abstentions.
