Agenda item

The Committee gave consideration to the first application on the agenda, number 147131, seeking permission for the construction and operation of a Battery Energy Storage (BESS) including substations, inverters, transformer stations, cabling, fencing, internal service track and landscaping, on land south of Barfield Lane, Reepham.

The Manager presented the Committee with a presentation comprised of photographs and a site plan. It was stated that the item was returning to Committee after the 21 November 2024 site visit, where Members had sought to gain a greater understanding of the application site, including the safety of the location, and access to the site. The Manager highlighted that the report included further representations after its initial presentation at the 6 November Committee meeting. It was outlined that the proposed development would be a 53MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with 16 batteries and ancillary works running through battery containers; the Manager emphasised that the details surrounding the battery containers had not yet been finalised. Further key features of the proposed development were then described, including its location between the Star Energy gas site and the sewerage works.

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and stated that there were two registered speakers; the first speaker, Mr James Cook, as Agent to the Applicant, was invited to address the Committee.

Mr Cook described the location of the proposed development, he explained that the Star Energy site, which was an upper-tier Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) site, according to guiding principles, must be able to manage risk within their site boundary, irrespective of nearby land uses. He added that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had overall responsibility for COMAH sites, and had been consulted as part of the application, to which no concerns were raised. With regard to consultation, he explained that Star Energy were also consulted, and no concerns or objections were raised. The Agent added that as well as fire prevention and mitigation measures incorporated into the BESS packages, distance was also used to prevent potential fire spread, with three metre gaps being the UK ruling taken from the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) document 855; Standard 855 was used to mitigate associated hazards and to minimise the risk of thermal runaway. He emphasised that the site design took a more conservative position, with plans for six metre gaps between the sets of battery containers. The Agent noted that the boundary for Star Energy was 38 metres away from the nearest battery container, citing examples of BESS facilities on or adjacent to COMAH sites, this included the Star Energy site, which had a 4MW BESS facility, amongst others. Examples were given of planning application refusals that had been overturned on appeal; in such cases where health, safety, and fire risks had been identified, inspectors appeared to have been satisfied when fire and rescue services had not objected against the plans.

Location-related concerns from the 6 November 2024 Committee meeting and subsequent 21 November site visit were highlighted, with the Agent stating that a key aspect of any BESS site was access to the local distribution network; he explained that there must be sufficient network capacity to accommodate the development. Mr Cook explained that discussions with National Grid identified the connection point for the BESS at the 132 overhead line west of North Greetwell. Furthermore, he explained that other possible locations in the area were deemed less suitable than the proposed site due to a variety of reasons such as impact on residential areas, the open character of the area, and restrictions in the CLLP. The Agent outlined that the proposed site was selected due to its proximity to existing industrial developments, and the distance from nearby villages of Sudbrooke and Reepham. Finally, Mr Cook added that the proposal met the four tests of policy S5 of the CLLP, and summarised its merits, he stated that the scheme would enhance the rural economy; the site had suitable access points; the scheme would not conflict with neighbouring commercial uses, and it would be of a similar or smaller scale to those developments. He concluded by asking the Committee to support the application.

The Chairman thanked Mr Cook for his comments, and invited the second registered speaker, Cllr T Bridgwood, as Ward Member, to address the Committee.

Cllr Bridgwood began by explaining that as well as being a Ward Member he worked as an experienced Estimator in the passive fire protection industry. Additionally, he was a member of the Association for Specialist Fire Protection and helped to maintain the compliance of related technical documentation. He recalled the 4 November Council meeting, where he had submitted a motion regarding BESS sites, he highlighted their importance, but stressed his concerns about the lack of responsibility and accountability regarding design, location, and safety.

Cllr Bridgwood quoted the HSE’s response on page 20-21 of the report pack, noting the need for the Applicant to consult with the operator of the COMAH establishment. The distinction between consultation and contact was emphasised by the Ward Member, and he explained that Star Energy had been contacted, rather than fully consulted. According to the report, Star Energy had not responded to the second attempt for contact; Cllr Bridgwood explained the reason for the delay in response, adding that they responded eventually. Furthermore, it was highlighted that on 29 November 2024, the Estate Manager of the Star Energy site had reiterated their objections to the planning Officer and had stressed the need for a pre-commencement risk reduction strategy and/or COMAH safety report. Regarding consultation, the Councillor explained that the Estate Manager was unaware of any detailed consultation with the Agent regarding the proposed development, but cited a conversation with the Agent where Star Energy had emphasised the need for further consultation to sufficiently demonstrate the proposed development would not have a detrimental effect on the safety of the COMAH site.

The Chairman thanked Cllr Bridgwood for his comments and asked for any Officer response.

In response to comments regarding consultation, the Manager explained that COMAH sites were administered by the HSE and subject to a separate area of legislation from land-use planning. It was clarified that the COMAH-competent authority would be a statutory consultee in the case of various new developments where the siting or development may be the source of or increase the risk or consequences of a major accident. It was explained that the planning requirement was to consult the COMAH-competent authority, which was the HSE and the Environment Agency (EA); the Manager noted that the HSE had not advised against the development. However, the HSE had advised that the adjacent operator, Star Energy, should be consulted, and thus the report had been updated to include Star Energy’s comments. The Manager added that Star Energy had requested further consultation should the application be approved. It was highlighted that an outline Fire Management Strategy had been submitted by the Applicant, with further detail and consultation with the Council and Star Energy conditioned as part of the Officer’s recommendation.

In response to a question, the Manager summarised that a risk reduction strategy had been requested by Star Energy but emphasised that the Council was not required under planning regulation to request a COMAH safety report.

Members raised concerns regarding energy efficiency; it was highlighted that 30% of electricity would be lost due to the length of the cables and the resistance within. Other questions were raised about the longevity and disposal of the batteries, and overall emissions, with Members questioning the long-term environmental impact of the development. In addition to this, Members highlighted inconsistencies in the figures listed on the Applicant’s website in comparison with those included in the application and questioned whether nearby residents would benefit from cheaper electricity as a result of the application.

In response, the Manager added that the permanence of the application combined with any future technological advancements may mean that the waste level would potentially reduce over time, however, national planning policy indicated that BESS sites were a positive overall contribution to achieving net zero. Members of the Committee later reiterated this, supporting the Officer’s recommendation and adding that although BESS technology was an emerging technology, it was in-keeping with policy S16 of the CLLP, and specific design details were appropriate for the local area. As a result of this, a proposal was moved to accept the Officer’s recommendation of approval.

Responding to a question regarding grid connection, the Manager reminded the Committee that the Agent had explained in their statement that other sites in the area were deemed unsuitable.

Questions were asked about the site’s safety features, with the Manager clarifying that the plans included a safety system, although yet to be determined, which included 24/7 remote control supervision and automatic notifications to the fire service when needed.

Members of the Committee expressed concern regarding the limited access to the site, with particular regard to the secondary emergency access arrangements. The Manager had previously explained that the proposal included secondary emergency access for vehicles in the event of Barfield Lane being inaccessible, and right of access had been secured via Reepham, which had appeased the fire service. Limited accessibility was repeatedly referenced by Members, with the Committee highlighting safety concerns around the significant volume and nature of traffic on the surrounding roads. As a result of concerns regarding inconsistencies in the figures provided; issues relating to secondary access; and concerns about the length of the connecting cables, a Member of the Committee moved to refuse planning permission. 

The Committee expressed concerns regarding battery-related fires and explosions leading to loss of life and property. It was highlighted by Members that fire services were advised to leave fires on similar sites to burn for up to 11-hours, leading to concerns about possible explosions. Repeated concern was expressed throughout the meeting regarding the application site’s proximity to other developments such as the Star Energy site, the sewerage works, and the garden centre. In the event of an emergency on site, issues were raised about the sewerage works and water contamination, alongside concerns about flammable materials at the garden centre which could exacerbate an incident. The Committee highlighted that such BESS applications were unprecedented in the local area, and therefore there were many questions that were unable to be answered sufficiently to reassure Members of the safety of the proposed development.

Regarding the risk of fire, Members felt that the water bunding capacity was insufficient, leading to further concerns regarding water contamination in the event of an emergency. In response to these concerns, the Manager reminded the Committee that the Council had fulfilled their legislative planning duties, and that the HSE, as the COMAH-competent authority, had not raised any objections regarding the bunding at that stage. In response to a question regarding water contamination, the Manager explained that the raised height of the battery containers, as well as use of a pin-stop valve, would help to prevent contaminated water spreading to a wider network in the event of a fire. According to the Manager, the outline document submitted by the Applicant had confirmed that water would be retained on site until testing could determine how the water was to be disposed. This was reiterated by the Chair, who referenced his job as an Environmental Auditor; he stated that companies who had gained accreditation to carry out such processes were rigorously audited and fully compliant with the relevant policies and regulations.  

In response to a question regarding the gaps between battery containers, the Manager clarified that the guidance stated six metres were advised, although that could be reduced to three metres subject to various mitigation requirements; he added that the Applicant was providing the minimum, a distance of three metres, which the fire service had not objected to.

The discussion was brought to a conclusion, with reasons for refusing the application summarised. Firstly, Committee Members were concerned that the proposed development would be likely to result in a conflict with neighbouring uses, which would include increasing the probability, extent and magnitude of an accident at a major hazard installation (top-tier COMAH operator) and disruption to the adjacent wastewater treatment centre. Secondly, the development would be contrary to policies S5 (Part E) and policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023, and would also conflict with paragraph 163 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as its impacts had not been made acceptable. Lastly, it had not been demonstrated that the impacts of the development in the event of a fire or accident had been adequately mitigated. It was considered that a satisfactory secondary access for emergency vehicles had not been provided; or that there were adequate measures to prevent land and water contamination in such an event. This was contrary to policy S56 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023, and would also conflict with paragraph 163 of the National Planning Policy Framework, as its impacts had not been made acceptable.

Cllr Fleetwood made a request for a recorded vote, which was duly seconded by Cllr Barrett.

Councillors Boles, Dobbie, Smith, and Snee highlighted their reasons for abstention; it was noted that the Members were abiding by legal advice, and thus were abstaining due to their absences at either the 6 November 2024 Planning Committee meeting, and/or the 21 November site visit.

On being put to the vote, votes were cast in the following manner:

For: Councillors Bailey, Barrett, Carless, Fleetwood, Morris.

Against: Councillor Bierley.

Abstain: Councillors Boles, Dobbie, Smith, Snee J.

With a total of five votes cast in favour, one vote against and four abstentions, it was agreed that planning permission be REFUSED on the basis that the site could potentially conflict with neighbouring uses, contrary to policies S5 and S53 of CLLP 2023, and the site would potentially increase the risk of contamination, contrary to S56 of the CLLP.