PROPOSAL: Development of an energy reserve facility and ancillary infrastructure.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

27.11        This application was for development of an energy reserve facility and ancillary infrastructure.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 11 August 2023.

27.12        The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which related to a question raised by a Member on the Planning Committee Site Visit.  The Environmental Health Officer had provided a late representation giving an update to clarify the position regarding noise.  This stated that the submitted noise assessment was robust and represented the worst-case scenario so the actual noise impact should be less than the predictions.  In addition, a condition was recommended to require a post-completion test to ensure noise levels were in line with predictions so that additional noise mitigation measures could be employed if necessary.  Modelling predictions concluded that sound levels would not exceed the measured background sound level in the area, both during the day and night, and background noise from road traffic along the A48 would still be the dominant sound climate in the area.  The application was for a Battery Energy Storage Site (BESS) of 99.99MW and Members had asked what that would look like in reality so he had included a slide within the presentation to show a 50MW site for illustrative purposes.  He advised that 100MW was roughly equivalent to supplying energy to 300,000 houses for approximately two hours.  Data from government research showed that 11 applications for sites of 90-99.9MW had been approved in England with a further nine to be determined.  This was a large scheme but was by no means unique and there were larger ones.  The BESS would connect to the Port Ham substation 1.5km to the east and the connection would be facilitated by the District Network Operator, which was the National Grid in this case, and that was separate from this scheme.  There were six dwellings at Linton Court Farm which were on assured shorthold tenancies as well as residential properties at Crosshands and Popes Pool Cottages.  With regard to site selection, the area was well-known for flooding and the existing field to the east of the application site was in Flood Zones 2 and 3; it had been very difficult to find a position for the site outside of a flood zone but the batteries themselves would be outside of the flood zone.  The site was Grade 1 agricultural land and Natural England had been consulted on the application and raised no objection to its loss.  Primary access would be at the far end of the track, adjoining the A40, with a railway line running to the south of the site.  There was a risk of a small section of the track flooding, therefore, a second and third access had been negotiated – even without that, there was no technical objection to using the primary access.  Linton Court Farm itself was at risk of flooding and could potentially restrict emergency vehicles accessing the site but the risk of all accesses being flooded simultaneously was extremely low and, in any event, would not necessarily prevent emergency service access. With regard to layout, there would be a linear arrangement of batteries, comprising 22 on the estate side, which would be 130m by 90m with each container being 2.9m high.  The compound would be enclosed by a 2.4m security fence and within a 2m landscape bund with a stock proof fence outside of that.  In terms of noise impacts, this was an issue raised by Members during the Planning Committee Site Visit the previous week and the Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the inclusion of a 3.5m acoustic fence on the northern boundary in order to minimise noise disruption to neighbouring residents.  He reiterated that the baseline situation comprised traffic noise from the A48.  Network Rail had been consulted on the application and expressed concern that a glint and glare assessment had not been undertaken; however, Officers’ recommendation was that was unnecessary in this instance.  The compound at the top corner of the site would comprise the electrics and maintenance building and the building for the District Network Operator.  The containers would be built on gravel extending around 1m above ground level.  There was a drainage outfall from the south which would drain into the watercourse and assurance was provided that all built development would be within Flood Zone 1 and, whilst the access may flood on occasion, the batteries themselves were extremely unlikely to flood.  Although the landscaping was still illustrative at this stage, a bund was to be created to the east and its slopes would be planted with Oak, Birch, Rowan and Maple which, in time, would develop into an effective screen with Linton Court Farm buildings behind it.  In the Officers’ view, the acoustic fence would not cause unacceptable visual harm given the context and, in any case, that was part of the modelling for the noise reduction scheme.  In conclusion, it was acknowledged that this was a large BESS scheme though it was by no means unique.  The development would bring some impact to the landscape, though this was mitigated by significant landscaping and ecological improvement measures.  In terms of flooding and fire risk, Officers considered the risk of both occurring at the same time to be extremely low and, in any event, a condition was recommended whereby batteries could not be installed until a system for dealing with such a scenario for flooding and fire was approved in conjunction with the Environment Agency and Fire Service.  To the extent that harm had been identified, that needed to be balanced with the overall objectives of the Council and the Government to address the effects of climate change.  Energy storage was an important measure contributing to the delivery of renewable energy sources and the climate emergency was considered to outweigh the identified harm and any future risks.  On that basis the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

27.13        The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that BESS were potentially a severe industrial hazard in the event of fire, as highlighted in the major fire that happened in Liverpool in September 2020.  The hazard was not only from fire and explosions, but also from fumes and toxic run-off from firefighting which required vast quantities of water to cool over many hours.  He questioned whether any thought had been given to the run-off produced if a fire should happen and how to stop the river being polluted.  Some of the hazardous toxics released due to fire included Hydrogen Fluoride, Hydrogen Chloride and Carbon Monoxide as well as flammable gases including Hydrogen, Methane and Ethylene.  The release of these toxic gases posed a significant threat to the health of people living and working nearby. Hydrogen Fluoride and Hydrogen Chloride were aggressive respiratory irritants and plumes of those gases may drift into the surrounding communities resulting in damage to human health.  The proposed layout of the site, with areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3, was unacceptable due to flooding risk. The submitted flood risk report even admitted that part of the site fell into areas of medium or low-high for various flood risk sources. Lithium-ion batteries reacted violently when exposed to water and was a leading cause of fires. Furthermore, the proposed access road to the site fell into Flood Zone 3 in places, with larger parts into Flood Zone 2, so he questioned how a fire/explosion at the site would be handled if the access road was impassable due to flooding.  Additionally, the A40 between his home, the site in question and The Dog at Over flooded.  This flood water was not from the river but from the neighbouring land and would impede fire rescue teams from accessing the site. In 2020 the main A40 had been closed in February and December for a minimum of 12 hours; Highways England was looking at this issue and he was waiting for an update and a full report.  The noise produced by the proposed development would be a disturbance to his animals and the horses in the neighbouring land, as well as the owls and other wildlife that lived around them - the battery farm would have an effect on those animals.  The A40 was the main road to and from Gloucester towards the Forest of Dean and Ross on Wye and building this battery farm would increase the volume of traffic especially during the construction period.  He hoped Members would be able to take this into consideration and urged them not to grant the application.

27.14        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that, in order to meet the Government’s carbon reduction targets under the Climate Change Act, the energy balance was becoming increasingly reliant on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar which could be intermittent and unpredictable. This, coupled with the phasing?out of fossil fuel power stations meant there was a growing need for new power solutions that could respond quickly to local spikes in demand and ensure a secure supply of energy for the local network.  With record levels of renewable sources generating power - roughly 40% in 2022 - wind and solar generators were increasingly being required to turn off when the demand for the power was not required at the time it was being generated. Battery storage could help to make the most of this green energy, using it to manage the peaks and troughs in demand and operate as efficiently as possible.  The proposed system would have the capacity to supply energy to somewhere in the region of 300,000 homes for up to two hours at a time during periods of peak demand.  Facilities must be located close to an existing Grid Supply Point (GSP) with both import and export capacity.  The Port Ham GSP was one of the last remaining National Grid GSP’s with the required import/export capacity available when the applicant had secured its connection agreement and there were now no remaining National Grid GSP points offering this capacity.  In order to minimise transmission losses and be economically viable, sites typically needed to be located within a kilometre of their connection. The only non-developed land within a kilometre of the Port Ham GSP fell within the designated flood plain. The site at Linton Court Farm lay approximately 1.5km away and offered the only land in the area considered suitable for the proposed development.  The site had been selected due to its proximity to the substation, a willing landowner, limited ecological value and compatible adjacent land uses. It was also well screened by existing topography and vegetation and had a low probability of flood risk. Battery technology was a clean energy system and did not create emissions to air. Detailed assessments had been undertaken to support the application and in all cases had confirmed that the proposals would not result in any unacceptable impacts.  This development would help to prevent local power interruptions and would therefore contribute to the local economy by means of electricity security whilst achieving a biodiversity net gain of over 24%.  It would also support increased renewable energy generation, contributing towards ‘net zero’ and reducing energy wastage.  As close as practical to the existing substation, capable of being substantially screened by existing and enhanced landscaping and able to achieve noise levels that did not exceed background at the closest houses, the land at Linton Farm provided a suitable site for this facility.  Tewkesbury Borough Council had declared a Climate Emergency and was aiming for carbon neutrality by 2030 and the applicant’s agent hoped that Members could follow the Officer recommendation and support this development which clearly aligned with those aims.

27.15        The Chair invited a local Ward Councillor for the area to address the Committee.  The Ward Councillor indicated that Members would have seen the flooding challenges affecting the site and he had been asked by residents and the Parish Council to draw attention to the key issues around safety, noise, flooding and fire risk.  The Senior Planning Officer had touched on loss of prime agricultural land, as set out particularly in Pages No. 69-70, Paragraphs 8.20-8.27 of the Committee report.  The impact of noise had been partly addressed in the Additional Representations Sheet and he was sure Members would wish to explore that further in their discussion, including the effectiveness of a proposed acoustic fence and the noise reduction scheme as well as the risk of pollution as outlined at Page No. 77, Paragraph 8.98 of the Committee report.  If the Committee was minded to follow the Officer recommendation, he asked that Members review the proposed conditions carefully and consider whether there was a need to strengthen the requirements, including ongoing monitoring on a range of concerns.  In his opinion, the core points of concern were as described at Page No. 67, Paragraph 8.1 of the report, specifically the area “beyond the bund”.  As highlighted by the Parish Council and the local resident in their address to the Committee, Members would be well aware of the concerns regarding hazard and fire risk from batteries and, being conscious of time constraints, he intended to focus on other areas.  He requested that Members explore the connection to the battery site – particularly the receptor route during an emergency as well as for general maintenance.  As set out in the report, the Committee would be well aware of the risk in abnormal and emergency situations; those risks from flooding were far from unusual and the proposed site often became an island. Being described as ‘entirely outside’ the flood zone did not reflect that it was on the edge of Flood Zone 2 and connections through primary, secondary and tertiary accesses would be underwater.  Should the Committee wish to refuse the application, there were a range of grounds for refusal as identified in the report; if Members were minded to approve he asked that they review the conditions very carefully and consider if there was merit in strengthening proposed conditions 7, 8 and 9 and whether the risk scenarios as modelled adequately met concerns or if there was a need for further safeguards, ongoing monitoring and review.

27.16        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  With regard to the suitability of the site and the connection, a Member understood that each unit should be within one kilometre of the substation; this would be 1.5km away but it appeared this was the only site available.  She asked for clarification of the impact of the additional 500m, for instance, would there be less input, and how that balanced with other risks.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that ideally the units would be as close as possible to the substation and the recommended distance was around 1km but it was not possible to achieve that on this site due to significant constraints including flooding.  His understanding was that it would reduce the effectivity of the connection and result in some transitional loss of energy but it was for the applicant to decide if this was a viable option and it should not have been put forward if it was not a viable option taking account of that loss.  Another Member noted that a number of representations mentioned noise concerns and she asked for clarification as to what would cause noise and the type, for instance, would it be a constant hum.  The Environmental Health Officer advised that it would be a constant noise; however, it had been assessed by an external noise consultant against the British Standards for industrial noise and background noise levels, and modelled based on the equipment which would be on site, and had been found to be acceptable.  In this case the potential harm would be caused by units exceeding the predicted noise levels but a condition had been recommended to ensure testing was undertaken post-completion to ensure levels were in line with predictions and to employ additional mitigation should that not be the case.  The Member asked if there was an expectation that noise levels would increase as the units aged and, given that the noise levels would not be above those caused by the A48, she questioned why a 3.5m acoustic fence was necessary.  In response, the Environmental Health Officer advised that the acoustic fence would have been taken into account in the modelling so there would be no increase in background noise level due to that barrier being in place.  There was always a possibility that noise would increase with age but with good maintenance it was not expected to be a significant problem and the Environmental Protection Act legislation could be used to deal with any issues which did arise.  A Member recognised that traffic noise was annoying; however, even the busiest road would have a quiet period and a lower intensity of noise, if constant, could be far more disturbing than intermittent noise – even though it may be less than the highway noise in the area, he asked if the constant nature had been taken into account in the modelling.  In response, the Environmental Health Officer explained that part of the British Standards calculations involved measuring day and night periods so the extra noise levels, particularly at nighttime, would have been taken into account.  There was an expectation that people would be inside their properties at night so this added further protection.  A Member noted there would be 72 batteries here and the noise would be caused by cooling fans so she asked what would be done on a hot day without exceeding the noise limit.  In her view the proposed facility was far too big for the area.  The Environmental Health Officer advised that many industrial units were required to have fans for cooling and that was a custom practice; whilst there would be slight fluctuations on hotter days to achieve a constant temperature, the assessment would have been based on a worst-case scenario so she was comfortable that impact would be negligible.

27.17        A Member noted concerns regarding risk of pollution and she asked for clarification as to whether that would be from a fire on the site or if there was also a risk from pollutants running off the units during rainfall.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed the risk of pollution would be from the Fire Service having to attend and cool down the units which could result in contaminate leaking into the surrounding watercourses which was why it was necessary to understand exactly how that would be dealt with before the batteries were installed.  Aside from this there was a negligible risk as the batteries would be entirely outside of the flood zone and built on approximately 1m of gravel.  The Member raised concern there may be pollution of the land given that the base would be permeable, and the Senior Planning Officer advised that it would be clean water permeating through so there would ordinarily be no way of picking up contaminates.  Another Member asked what type of land other sites of this nature were being built on elsewhere in the country, for instance, were they close to the flood plain or residential properties.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that his limited research on other sites coming forward indicated a broad range; in reality, substations tended to be close to residential areas for efficient transfer of energy and the effect of that was that BESS needed to be fairly close by.  Notwithstanding this, it was site dependent in terms of the constraints which existed for each site and how they could be overcome.  A Member indicated that her main concern was for nearby residents and she asked if Officers had looked at research on the physical and/or mental health impact of living near BESS sites.  The Senior Planning Officer indicated that he was not aware of any impacts; however, the technology was reasonably new and still evolving so he was unsure what data was available – there was research about living close to overhead pylons which could be an issue when they had been running for a long time but he did not believe this facility would result in anything over and above the remaining issues around the national energy grid and how it was delivered.  The Development Management Manager advised that the main impact related to noise and that had been assessed and found to be appropriate subject to conditions as set out in the Committee report.  In response to a query as to whether all cables would be underground, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that it would be an underground connection to the substation.  With regard to the tree planting along the bund line, a Member sought clarification that the top of the bund would be planted with trees in front of it and asked the likely height.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that a cross-section had been provided to illustrate mitigation over time and the maximum height of the trees, once mature, was marked on the plan; this would be significantly higher than the bund and above the level of the containers.

27.18        A Member noted that National Highways had no objection to the proposal subject to conditions but the facility would be very close to a trunk road and he imagined there would be a risk of safe operation in the event of a fire due to the smoke produced.  The Senior Planning Officer indicated that any development near a main road carried the risk of a fire taking place; in this case the risk of fire was low and would be manageable based on the proposed conditions.  The Development Management Manager pointed out that a fire detection system was also proposed, the details of which would be provided before installation of the battery units, so there was appropriate management of risk.  In response to a query as to why an Environmental Impact Assessment had not been requested, Members were advised that the environmental impact and effects of the proposed development did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment; that was not to say those effects had not been fully assessed as part of the application and he confirmed it had been assessed against the screening requirements in the regulation and the screening opinion stated that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not necessary to deal with the environmental impacts arising from the proposal.

27.19        In the absence of any further questions, the Chair again sought a motion from the floor.  As no motions were forthcoming, he proposed that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The motion did not receive a seconder.  It was subsequently proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of health and safety as the fire risk had not been dealt with adequately.  The Legal Adviser understood these concerns but explained that Officers had assessed the proposal in great detail, taking into consideration the potential impacts, and had imposed a condition which would ensure that details of a system for fire detection and suppression must be approved by the Council, Gloucestershire Fire and Rescue Service and the Environment Agency prior to the installation of the battery units.  As such, a refusal reason on that basis would be insufficient to uphold at an appeal and she suggested Members debate some of the other issues relating to the site in order to come forward with a proposal.  A Member indicated that he was not against this type of facility being built and recognised it was required for the future but he considered the site was inappropriate due to the proximity to residential properties and the harm that would be caused to the landscape.  He also had concerns regarding noise and the loss of Grade 1 agricultural land which was needed for farming.  Another Member pointed out there was very little Grade 1 agricultural land in Tewkesbury Borough and once lost it could not be replaced.  He was not against the facility but agreed that the location needed to be right; the applicant’s agent had stated this was the only available site in this area but there was more than one substation in the borough with land which may be of less agricultural value.  There would undoubtedly be more applications of this nature and he expressed the view that the Council should have a policy in place to ensure that BESS facilities were not built on Grade 1 or 2 agricultural land – that land was needed to grow food which was only becoming more important due to the climate change and cost of living crises.  The Development Management Manager advised that the Committee report clearly assessed all the relevant issues.  In terms of noise, there had been various queries from Members, which were all understood, and a submission from the Environmental Health Officer.  Noise and mitigation had been looked at very carefully and he cautioned against any reference to noise if Members were minded to refuse the application.  He recognised the concern regarding loss of agricultural land and drew attention to Page No. 70, Paragraph 8.22 of the Committee report which set out that Policy SD14 of the adopted Joint Core Strategy stated that new development must take into account the quality and versatility of any agricultural land affected by proposals, recognising that the best agricultural land was a finite reserve; however, the Senior Planning Officer had pointed to the lack of objections from technical consultees in this regard.  In terms of landscape, the site had been carefully assessed and appropriate mitigation was proposed appropriate to the scale of development.  As had been discussed, there were other facilities of this nature across the country but it was difficult to assess the proposal against them due to the variety of locations which all had their own individual impacts which needed to be assessed by the local planning authority – whilst Officers had sought to do this via the comprehensive Committee report, Members had also benefited from a site visit.  The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted was required to set out the overall effect on the landscape character and, as set out at Page No. 71, Paragraph 8.40 of the Committee report, this had concluded that the overall effect on the landscape character would be negligible.  Taking all this into account, he felt it would be difficult to justify a refusal on the basis of the areas that had been put forward.

27.20        A Member indicated that her research had identified that a similar site had been proposed in the Forest of Dean which had been refused by the Council but had subsequently been allowed on appeal with the Inspector stating that the benefits of the BESS would outweigh the impact on the landscape and residents were within 120m of that site.  Another Member was aware of another similar application in Brockworth but pointed out that would feed into an overhead line as there was no substation and she questioned why this could not be done on other sites as there may be more suitable locations if the requirement to be within a certain distance from the substation was removed.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the facility worked by taking energy from the grid at the time of least demand and delivering it back to the grid at times of peak demand.  BESS were essential requirements of renewable energy production as they provided the necessary means to store energy and put it back on the grid when needed. The connection from this site to the substation was two way which was slightly different to a solar farm which was just delivering one way.  The Member confirmed that the proposal in Brockworth was for a BESS rather than a solar farm and she understood it would be connected to the overhead line; if that was the case, there may be alternative locations for this facility that would be better than the one currently being proposed.  The Development Management Manager drew attention to Page No. 69, Paragraph 8.17 of the Committee report which set out the key criteria in terms of site selection according to the submitted planning statement and included BESS facilities being located close to a large existing substation that had capacity both to import and export energy, and he reminded Members that the proposal must be assessed on its own merits.

27.21        The proposer of the motion to refuse the application indicated that, on the basis of the Officer advice, he wished to withdraw his original proposal for refusal and propose that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  These type of facilities were clearly necessary and, whilst it was not what Members would like in terms of location, it appeared this was the only way the facility could be built.  He continued to have reservations about fire and security but, on reflection, the risks were outweighed by the benefits.  Another Member indicated that she felt very conflicted due to the list of potential objections including landscape harm, impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of noise, possible contamination, flood risk and loss of agricultural land but these had all been discussed either in the report or during the debate today.  She felt it was necessary to balance these concerns with the benefits of the facility and, although she did not feel it was the best site, it may be that there was no better site available within the borough.  A Member questioned whether there would be any benefit in deferring the application for more information and another Member expressed the view that, whilst he too felt conflicted, there would be nothing to be gained from a deferral and he seconded the proposal to permit the application. 

27.22        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.