Agenda item

Installation and operation of a 36MW battery storage facility.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and explained that it was for a 36MW battery storage facility for a period of 40 years. She then highlighted the following key considerations:

·         The proposed location was an agricultural field.

·         It was in close proximity to a national cycle route and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT).

·         The site would be connected to an existing substation via an underground cable.

·         The battery cells would use lithium-Ion battery technology and would be able to store energy when it was in excess and release it back onto the grid when there was demand. This technology would help prevent power outages and surges.

·         The site was in the open countryside

·         Locational factors such as provision of access to the national grid and point of connection, availability of suitable land and proximity of point of access to the highway network. This site met the criteria.

·         The majority of the site was in flood zone 1.

·         There were a number of concerns raised regarding loss of agricultural land, impact on landscape, noise pollution and impact on highways network, all statutory consultees had been consulted and no objections were raised.

·         There would be Biodiversity enhancements secured through planting.

·         The proposal was over 290m away from the nearest listed building and it was not considered to have an impact on the setting of the listed building.

·         Key concern raised regarding the fire risk and the following risk of toxic fumes from the batteries. Further concerns were raised regarding evacuation from the nearby WWT. Further details of the fire safety precautions had been received from the applicant and condition 14 requests for a battery safety management plan to be received prior to any power switch on.

Mr Stayte, Parish Councillor for Slimbridge Parish Council, spoke against the proposal and asked the Committee to reject the application for the following reasons. They believed that the facility was not suitable for the area due to its size, the cables required, and the tracks required for access and would be better suited to a brownfield site. The facility would harm the visual amenity of the area. Stroud District Council promoted the use of brownfields sites and development to be sited away from the Severn in their strategic objectives. In addition, the site was prone to flooding and the noise pollution from the facility and from construction would have an effect on local residents. The access route would have a high volume of tourist traffic for the WWT site, Tudor Arms, caravan park and the Canal. To add construction traffic into this mix would impact on road safety. The road also formed part of the national cycle route and was used by pedestrians and horse riders. Concerns had been raised over fire safety and evacuation from the tourist places as they all utilise the same access road. 

Ms Brown, a local resident, spoke against the application and asked the Committee to reject the proposal for the following reasons:

·         There were more suitable locations for this facility.

·         The applicant appointed consultants to engage with the Parish however those in attendance found the presentation to be ill informed.

·         We understand the need for renewable energy however there is also a need to site potentially hazardous structures away from large tourist areas.

·         Concerned that this application was purely for profit due to many changes in the company.

·         There were many errors in the paperwork which impacted on the credibility and professionalism of the developer.

·         There was no consultation for the local surrounding businesses.

·         In the event of a large-scale evacuation from the local tourist spots, the evacuation route was a single track lane which initially led towards the proposed site.

·         A similar site in Liverpool suffered a ‘thermal runaway’ after a fire which lead to an explosion and the release of toxic gas in a residential area. There is still a lack of knowledge of this technology.

·         Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue had highlighted the risk of such a situation and referenced the impact of pollution to the environment. Residents were concerned for their rural location and its many water courses adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

Mr Murray, spoke in favour of the application on behalf of the applicant. He asked the Committee to approve the proposal. The UK energy system was currently undergoing a transformation and battery storage would be the enabler for this. Fossil fuel powered generators were being phased out and the UK was transitioning towards a self-sufficient, green energy future. Battery storage would be essential for the network to operate using clean sources of power. The proposed site comprised of predominately lower grade agricultural land, the scheme would provide acceptable screening and significantly enhance the biodiversity benefits. The compound was in flood zone 1, was a viable distance away from the substation and had a valid grid connection. A construction management plan had been submitted to limit any adverse effects on the local road network. Once the construction phase was completed the site would only need to be accessed occasionally by small work vans. A detailed noise assessment report had also been submitted and no objections were received from the councils Environmental Health department. Permission for this application would require a full battery safety management plan to be submitted before development could take place. This would address any safety concerns and was conditioned in the application. There had been a huge leap forward in battery storage systems in recent years since the incident mentioned in Liverpool. They would also look to install water misting shields to form a barrier and limit any smoke escaping from the site in the event of a fire.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers. In response to queries it was confirmed that:

·         The site was either a grade 2 or 4 agricultural land however a classification had not been completed due to the size of the development.

·         Page 177 referenced that the site involved essential community facilities. Electricity was seen as an essential community facility.

·         Part of the battery safety management plan would involve the applicant to engage with Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service to agree any safety features such as fire hydrants.

·         There was grid capacity within the substation which was a key locational factor.

·         There were no designated areas for these types of development within the Local Plan.

·         The construction period was due to take around 6 months and the developer would need to engage with Gloucestershire County Council Highways in order to manage any disruption when laying the underground cable.

·         If the Committee was minded, they could add an informative for the developer to engage with the WWT to keep them updated with the battery safety management plan.

The Planning Officer reminded the Committee that any conditions applied would need to pass the 6 tests in order to be justified.

In response to Councillor Green, the Planning Officer confirmed that there were no flood lights proposed.

Councillor Green proposed to refuse the application as it directly contradicted policy CP15 of the current Local Plan. The application site was outside of the settlement boundary. Councillor Schoemaker seconded.

Councillor Green stated that it was development in the open countryside on what was possibly grade 2/4 agricultural land which would industrialise the character of the area.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager asked Councillor Green clarified that the harm identified for the refusal reason would be to the character of the area and the landscape character. Councillor Green agreed.

Councillors debated further refusal reasons.

The meeting was adjourned for a short break from 10:06 - 10:12pm.

The Chair asked Councillors Green and Schoemaker if they would be happy for the final wording of the refusal reasons to be agreed in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair. They both agreed.

Councillor Prenter weighed up the comments made and stated he would vote against refusal.

Councillor Brown debated the need for renewable energy storage and expressed concerns for the access of the site as the road was single track and very narrow.

Councillor Cornell echoed Councillor Browns comments and raised concerns that if the proposal was refused then the substation could continue to be under capacity and therefore the storage would need to be nearby whilst avoiding the higher flood risk areas.

Councillor Green summed up by stating that the application was outside of the settlement boundary, on agricultural land. It would cause significant harm to the countryside, landscape character, health and wellbeing of local residents and potential harm to local businesses as well as the other reasons already discussed.

After being put to a vote there were 4 votes for and 4 votes against. On the use of the Chairs second and casting vote, the Motion to refuse permission was lost.

Councillor Cornell proposed the Officer advice to permit the application and Councillor Miles seconded.

After being put to a vote there were 4 votes for and 4 votes against. On the use of the Chairs second and casting vote, the Motion to grant permission was carried.

RESOLVED To permit the application.