Agenda item

To consider an application for the construction and operation of an energy storage facility, fencing, landscape planting, site access, drainage, infrastructure, lighting, CCTV equipment and underground cabling.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/1070/FUL be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation due to significant harms that would be caused to residential amenity and limitations of the accessibility of the site, which would be contrary to Policies DP1 and DP7. The harms identified outweighed the benefits of the scheme.

Votes – 11 for, 2 against

The Officer’s Report stated that the application had been referred to the Planning Committee as it was recommended for approval. This was contrary to objections raised by a Divisional Member and by Frome Town Council. In addition, a Divisional Member had requested that the application be referred to the Planning Committee. As the application constituted a major development, the scheme of delegation requires the Planning Committee to determine the application.

The report continued that the significant safety concerns raised through public consultation were an important factor to consider in the planning balance. However, Devon and Somerset Fire and Rescue Service had not objected to the application, and there was no reason to conclude the development could not be delivered with acceptable fire, emergency and monitoring plans in place.

The Council has declared a climate emergency, and the development would support the renewable energy sector.. Although the development would change the local character, due to the site context and proposed mitigation planting, the harm was considered acceptable when weighed against the benefits of the proposal.

Identified harms included landscape harm and harm to the character and appearance of the site. However, the application should be considered in the context that the harms would be temporary and reversible (be it for a 40-year timescale). Benefits included energy storage, including renewable energy and biodiversity net gain and construction and operation jobs.

In conclusion, considering all the harms and benefits in the overall planning balance, the benefits were  considered by Officers to outweigh the harms and the application was recommended for approval subject to a S106 legal agreement and the imposition of a suite of planning conditions and informatives.

The Planning Officer explained the application to the Committee with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation.

There were 5 speakers in objection to the application. Their comments included:

• Dangerous location. Very close to residential properties, a stream and an electricity sub-station.
• The guidance provided by the Fire Service has been disregarded.
• Problems with the accessibility of the site.
• Distance between the batteries is insufficient.
• Alternative sites had not been given full consideration.
• A deferral for a site visit should be made.
• The site is outside settlement boundaries.
• High risk of toxic water contamination of Rodden stream.
• Will have a catastrophic impact on the invertebrates, fish and otters in the stream.
• Somerset Council must not set a precedent by ignoring fire safety warnings and allowing battery storage on such a small site so close to residential dwellings.
• Sound pollution is inevitable. The acoustic fence will be ineffectual above the ground level of properties due to the gradient of the field.
• Visual amenity of residents will be affected as the fence will block the view of the meadow.
• Toxic BESS (Battery Energy Storage System) fires cannot be extinguished and will be left to burn out.
• No industrial rated fire hydrants nearby, no access for fire appliances and no toxic water retainment.
• The application is unsafe and should be refused.

Speaking in support of the application were two people who made the following comments:

• The safety of battery storage is of utmost importance and is designed to ensure a safe and reliable operation.
• Once operational, the site will be monitored and maintained by trained professionals and there will be regular inspections.
• The scheme will provide renewable energy with less reliance on fossil fuels.
• The technology has been developed for the future and is here to stay.
• The project is a considerable financial investment and there will be substantial benefits to the community.
• Safety is paramount.

Next to speak was a representative of the Frome Town Council. She commended the Planning Officer on the comprehensive report and advised that Frome Town Council had declared a climate emergency. She acknowledged that battery storage would provide renewable energy, but there were still concerns over safety and noise although the Officer had responded to these concerns in their report. She requested that the Committee take all these details into consideration when making their decision.

The final speaker was the agent on behalf of the applicant. His comments included the following:

• The application is recommended for approval by the Planning Officer.
• BESS is vital to help achieve net zero carbon emissions.
• The site is adjacent to the electricity substation.
• BESS will store excess energy which will allow a better balance of supply and demand.
• Lithium batteries are considered safer. There have never had any fires reported using these.
• The Somerset and Dorset Fire and Rescue Service have no objections, saying that the applicant is aware of, and is compliant with, their requirements.
• The scheme will be a valuable local benefit will contribute to the management of the electricity supply and will be conveniently located near and electricity substation.

In the discussion with followed, Members made a number of points, including:

• Concern about the impact of the commercial traffic to the site for the residents of Styles Close. In response, Members were advised to there would be very little traffic when the site is operational. Most will occur during the construction phase.
• Access concerns as there is only one way into the site and the same way out. Members were advised this was considered by the applicant, but there were no other viable options. Neither the Fire Authority nor the Highway Authority had objected to the access.
• Disagreement that there had never been any fires associated with this new type of battery. A similar battery that caught fire caused local river pollution. Members were advised that the LPA is reliant on the Fire Authority to provide advice, which has been taken in good faith. The potential pollution issue has been consulted on with the Council’s Ecology Team and the Environmental Agency and recommended planning conditions have been agreed with the Local Lead Flood Authority.
• A site visit would be beneficial. The view of the meadow would be blocked by the acoustic fence.
• The community are extremely worried about a fire and the environmental consequences.
• There seems to be too many unknowns from the Fire Authority for complete assurance that it is a safe proposal.
• Although the scheme in principle is excellent and will store energy that would otherwise have been wasted, the Fire Authorities in Devon and Somerset and Hereford and Worcester have many concerns.
• The NFCC (National Fire Chiefs Council) state that 2 access points are required for BESS sites as wind directions can change and there could be a risk of having to drive through explosive vapour clouds. The site only has one way in and out.
• Noise pollution would be unacceptable. In response, Members were advised that there was a noise report submitted with the application for a 5m acoustic fence. In consultation with the environmental protection team, this was reduced to 4m. Refusal on this basis would not be justified.

At the conclusion of the debate, it was proposed by Councillor Susannah Hart proposed and seconded by Councillor Edric Hobbs , to refuse the application for reasons of residential amenity and access. Given the close proximity to properties in Styles Close and the limitations of the accessibility of the site the proposal would be contrary to Policies DP1 and DP7. The significant harms arising would outweigh the benefits that the scheme would deliver.

On being put to the vote the proposal was carried with 11 votes in favour and 2 against.

RESOLVED

That planning application 2023/1070/FUL be REFUSED contrary to the Officer’s recommendation due to significant harms that would be caused to residential amenity and limitations of the accessibility of the site, which would be contrary to Policies DP1 and DP7. The harms identified outweighed the benefits of the scheme.

Votes – 11 for, 2 against