This application was for the erection of a battery energy storage system including access track, CCTV and light poles, car parking spaces, perimeter fencing and gates, and associated infrastructure on land off, Buildwas Bank (North of Silvertrees, Jiggers Bank), Coalbrookdale, Telford, Shropshire.
This application was before committee at the request of Councillor G Thomas.
Councillor G Thomas, Ward Councillor spoke against the application raising concerns in relation to safety and environmental impact, limited access, fire risk and toxic fumes from battery storage and the impact of the water. Further concerns were raised in relation to the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which was directly in the field below and any water from a fire would run into Coalbrookdale and the Ironbridge Ward. This part of Telford and Wrekin was unstable and recent stabilisation works had taken place on Jiggers Bank as the land had dropped five foot. It was felt that it would be difficult to put any fire out on this site with its limited access and this development would amplify the risks. There would be no benefit to the rural community due to the impact on the SSSI, the inadequate access and unstable waterway and it was asked that the application be refused.
Cllr D Cooper, Little Wenlock Parish Council, spoke against the application in relation to the safe operation of the site. The NFCC guidelines were draft and out for consultation and could not be taken into account. Whilst some areas of the application met planning policy others did not and the fear of an appeal was not a valid reason to approve the application. He shared examples of recent articles in relation to fires within battery storage plants and asked that the technology not be rushed into putting the safety of firefighters, the community and residents at risk.
Mr N Cussen, Applicant’s Agent spoke in favour of the application and the urgent need to tackle climate change. The Local Plan supported low carbon energy in order to meet national need, reach net zero emissions and bring down bills. The application was subject to conditions which were recognised. Consultation had taken place with the local community, residents and the Parish Council. There were no technical objections from consultees. Grid connection on this site was confirmed and this was the reason why the developer had chosen at this site. Screening would be implemented as recommended by the Heritage Officer and there would be no loss of agricultural land. The Scheme was considered to have less than substantial harm and in relation to the NPPF the harm was outweighed by the public benefit. The land was not designated or valued landscape and the application was considered not be to materially detrimental due to the biodiversity net gain. Fire safety measures and design were the most up to date and the safety strategy would be maintained for the life of the scheme. Recent Planning Inspector decisions had given significant weight to moving to net zero and the benefit of the proposals outweighed the detriment.
The Planning Officer informed Members that the application proposed a Battery Energy Storage System, known as a BESS, on an agricultural field enclosed by hedges, accessed from the A4169 to the north adjacent to Jiggers Bank to the east and Lydebrook SSSI to the south-west. The Severn Gorge Conservation Area and Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site were located 0.5 and 1km to the south respectively. The land was crossed by an overhead line with a pylon situated in the south-west corner of the site which would provide direct connection to the National Grid. The purpose of the BESS was to store excess energy to enable it to be used during times of peak demand, instead of being wasted. The existing site access from the A4169 was to be improved and utilised with a new permeable internal access track constructed, allowing vehicles to access the BESS area via two internal access points.
The infrastructure was proposed to be operational for 40 years and at the end of its 40-year operational life, all above ground infrastructure would be decommissioned, removed and the land returned to its original condition as an open field. The key policies in determining whether the principle of development could be supported were SP3 and SP4. With regards to Policy SP3, the site was not previously developed land and failed this aspect of the policy.
The Applicant had submitted an Agricultural Land Classification survey which graded the site as Grade 3b. The site could be accepted due to having access to good infrastructure in terms of proximity to highways and the pylon and the policy was met in respect of these.
Policy SP4, and the NPPF, sought for planning applications to meet the policies of the Development Plan in order to be considered ‘sustainable development’. As the committee report detailed renewable energy policy ER1 was considered to partially comply with various criteria within ER1 and partially fail, as follows:
• ER1(1) – the proposals were considered to comply with the policy in terms of highways, ecology, drainage, archaeology and land stability subject to the mitigation and planning conditions recommended. In terms of built heritage, it may not be possible to initially fully screen the DNO Metering Substation from the upper sections of Jiggers Bank and the setting of the heritage assets. To mitigate the impact, the eastern boundary would be planted with heavy standard trees and a small coppice of heavy standard trees planted behind in addition to a 133m linear hedgerow.
• ER1(2) – the proposals were considered to meet the requirements of the policy with regards to noise and air pollution subject to the mitigation and planning conditions recommended. Electrical interference was unlikely to be an issue. However, on grounds of visual impact the proposals may fail to fully mitigate the impact.
• ER1(3) – the proposals included mitigation measures to minimise any environmental impacts and consultees had recommended planning conditions where appropriate, therefore the proposals were considered to meet the requirements of this part of the policy.
• ER1(4) – the proposals were for a designated period of 40-years and conditions required the site to be reinstated to a field when the use ceased. In addition, planning conditions required measures to ensure any enhancements in BNG were not lost through the decommissioning or reinstatement process.
• ER1(5) – “When considering the social and economic benefits, account will be taken of the degree of community participation/ownership of a scheme.” Within their documentation the Applicant described their community involvement as consisting of pre-application discussions with Little Wenlock Parish Council and a drop-in session for the community held in October 2023. The Applicant had indicated they were willing to collaborate with the relevant parishes to establish a community benefit fund although no material proposals were included as part of this planning application. As such the proposals were found not to fully meet this requirement of the policy when considering the social and economic benefits of the scheme.
Therefore, the proposals partially met and partially conflicted with ER1(1) and (2); the requirements of ER1(3) and (4) were met; with the proposals not demonstrating full compliance with ER1(5). For both ER1(1) and (2) the concerns related to visual impact and built heritage, especially the impact upon the appearance of the site and the setting to the entrance to the Severn Gorge Conservation Area and Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site.
For those reasons the planning application partially met and partially conflicted with the requirements of Policy SP4. Equally it met Policy SP3 in part, requiring a balance of considerations.
The balance for Members to consider was whether any adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that the proposals would bring about, with regards to enabling lower carbon technology and the storage of energy that might otherwise be wasted.
As the proposals had provided mitigation in terms of highways, drainage, ecology, land stability and amenity/disturbance, these concerns were considered to have been addressed subject to the recommended planning conditions.
A number of concerns had been raised by members of the public regarding safety considerations, and these had been addressed in the committee report, including a 2019 BESS fire in Liverpool, the risk of thermal runaway, and a recent planning appeal in East Devon that was dismissed, with parties suggesting these set a precedent for this development to be refused. The Applicant had provided information to demonstrate that the proposed development at Jiggers Bank was not comparable to either the Liverpool container fire or the East Devon appeal, and that the proposed cabinet design would prevent thermal runaway.
The National Fire Chiefs Council guidance for BESS had been updated and consulted upon, and the spacing between the units together with their design reflected the revised guidance.
Taking all considerations into account, it was a finely balanced judgement regarding whether any adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits. However, officers considered that there was sufficient compliance with the Local Plan policies and the NPPF as a whole to recommend the application for approval subject to the conditions proposed.
During the debate some Members raised concerns regarding the risk of fire and pollution and the effects on the local community. Land stability was of concern together with the single point of entry to the site and whether other sites had been considered. Other Members were supportive in principle but asked if there were any plans in place to consider the economic impact over the lifecycle and disposal of batteries. Concerns were raised in regards to the failure to comply with policies BE1, BE3 and BE5 and ER1 (i, ii and v), and the visual impact on a beautiful area and that this was the right application but in the wrong location.
The Planning Officer addressed Members in relation to land stability and confirmed that both the geotechnical specialists and the drainage officers had raised no concerns. In relation to the single entrance, the National Fire Chiefs Council Guidance stated that two access points were preferable but not required. A meteorological survey had confirmed that the prevailing wind direction was from the south and south west. There were two internal access points to the battery facility. The Shropshire Fire and Rescue Service were content that they would not be put at risk in the event of a fire. The site selection was determined by the availability of land and grid connection and the need for the electricity in that area. A scoping exercise had been undertaken which had reduced the suitable sites but other sites had not been considered. Members were asked to make a decision on the application before them. In relation to economic and environmental impact, battery replacement, health and safety and grid scale and electrical energy, the product designers had guidance on the operation, maintenance and decommissioning of batteries and the responsibility for recycling. Contamination and landslip were two separate issues and Members must base their decision on the specialist reports. The risk of landslide had been minimised through design and Members were informed of the scheme should a fire occur. The environmental impact would be mitigated by a band of trees together with linear hedgerow.
Upon being put to the vote it was, by a majority:
RESOLVED – that delegated authority not be granted to the Development Management Service Delivery Manager to grant full planning permission subject to the conditions and informatives.
Following debate and on being put to a vote it was, by a majority:
RESOLVED – that the application for planning permission be refused on the grounds that the Planning Committee, on balance, were not satisfied that the development sufficiently complied with local policy and National Guidance and therefore did not support sustainable development.
Reasons:
1. By virtue of the known land instability, with the Gorge being geologically young, the development in considered unacceptable and fails to comply with the requirements of Telford & Wrekin Council Local Plan Policy BE9. By virtue of this the proposed development also conflicts with Policies SP3 and SP4.
2. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable visual intrusion harming the settings of the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site and Severn Gorge Conservation Area. It would therefore fail to comply with Policies BE1(i, iii, v), BE3(i, ii), BE5(iii, iv) and ER1(i, ii) and, by virtue of this harm outweighing the public benefits, conflicts with Policies SP3 and SP4.
3. The proposed development has demonstrated a limited level of community participation or ownership of the scheme, contrary to Policy ER1(v). The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies SP3 and SP4.