Agenda item

Installation of a Battery Energy Storage System of up to 49.9MW, associated infrastructure and enclosing compound, together with access and landscaping works.

The Case Officer provided members with the following update;

• An update sheet had been circulated to members ahead of the meeting.
• Revised drawings.
• Briefing note from applicant.
• Additional representatives had been received.
• Revised planning conditions: Condition 2; approved drawings. Condition 7: water tanks and Condition 9; hard and soft landscaping.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site, which was located between Southill and Chickerell, and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Members were informed of the planning considerations including site boundaries, proximity to residential properties, and its current use for horse grazing. The site was characterized by several constraints, including surface water flood risk, public rights of way, a mineral safeguarding area, and the presence of a national grid overhead line. Photographs from the southern boundary of the site provided a clear perspective looking towards the site.

The previous planning application, was refused in March 2024 due to concerns related to fire safety, contamination, single vehicular access and ack of vehicle passing places. The current planning application was a revised scheme to address the reasons for refusing the earlier application.. Key changes in the proposed layout included a reduction in power capacity, the introduction of a secondary emergency access route, and a well-considered landscaping plan featuring wildflowers and shrub planting that aligned with existing features. The overall design aimed to provide a well-contained environment that offered significant amenity benefits. Significant attention had been given to drainage strategies developed in collaboration with the council’s flood risk management team. . Additionally, the initiative incorporated renewable and low-carbon technologies, targeting electricity storage that could support approximately 19,500 households across Dorset—representing 8.7% of local demand. The key planning issues favourably supported the principle of development, aligning with national planning practice guidance and NFCC standards for health and safety. The Officer’s recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to conditions set out in the officer report.

Public Participation

Mr Fannon spoke in objection to the proposal. He questioned the absence of credible test data, emphasizing that safety couldn't be assumed without real-life evidence. He highlighted that containers burn for days and felt that BES facilities belong far from communities. The applicant's promise of minimal energy supply—only 1.7 watts per home—seemed inadequate. With the threat of toxic smoke looming. He hoped the committee would consider the safety of residents and refuse the proposal.

Kay Kelsall felt that the application failed to meet fire chief requirements for two distinct access points. The report acknowledged that the secondary eastern route merged with the primary route, undermining safety. While the applicant cited prevailing northern winds, real-life examples reveal the risks posed by smoke and toxins from fires, not the flames themselves. There’s no substantiated evidence of an effective fire response to mitigate these concerns. Ms Kelsall felt that the proposal was unacceptable and urged members to refuse.

John Perrot also spoke in objection to the proposal. He felt that the concerns regarding the FRS were valid and should have been prioritized by the committee. The poor application design raised significant issues, particularly with contaminated water. Previous refusals highlight the flaws which remained unaddressed. Three minutes is insufficient to fully outline the inconsistencies, especially regarding pollution control. The similarity of the two applications cannot be ignored. It’s crucial to uphold Policy 9 of the NPPF and object accordingly.

Chris Cox spoke on behalf of the applicant. He felt that the proposal represented a significant step forward in addressing previous concerns and delivering a project which prioritized safety, environmental benefits, and renewable energy security. From the outset, the applicant and agent had worked closely with Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service, engaging with them to ensure that fire safety measures met and exceeded their requirements. Their input had been invaluable in shaping a comprehensive approach to fire prevention, detection, and suppression. To address the committee’s previous concerns about emergency access, a secondary access route had now been incorporated into the design. This ensured that emergency services would always have rapid and reliable access to the site. In terms of fire safety, the proposal incorporated cutting-edge systems which would work together to create one of the most robust fire safety frameworks in the industry. All statutory bodies, including the Environment Agency, Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue, and public health officers, had raised no objections, demonstrating their confidence in its safety and design. Additionally, significant biodiversity enhancements would have been delivered. To conclude, the project adopted the most advanced safety systems of any Battery Energy Storage System in Dorset. It supported renewable energy generation and contributed to the UK’s energy security, whist also delivering environmental benefits to the local area. Mr C Cox thanked the officer for their comprehensive report and hoped members would support.

Cllr David Palmer spoke on behalf of Chickerell Town Council who hoped the committee would overturn the officer recommendation and refuse the planning application. He highlighted their justification for requesting the committee to refuse based on the proximity of the proposed site to both an existing urban area and proposed new housing development, which if agreed, would have delivered 393 new houses and land for a primary school adjacent to the proposed storage site. Cllr Palmer highlighted the concerns of the residents of Chickerell through their attendance at Town Council meetings and conversations with Councillors. They were concerned regarding the fire risk and the potential release of hazardous chemicals and the health risks that it would impose. The Town Council also referred to the Chickerell Neighbourhood Plan, highlighting wildlife corridors and the importance of protecting land from potential development. Cllr David Palmer also highlighted the proximity of the proposed development to the football stadium and the Dorset Police Divisional HQ, arguing the potential risks in evacuation of the sites if necessary due to a major incident caused by the proposed battery storage site. In conclusion, Chickerell Council believed that the Committee should listen to the concerns of residents and acknowledge the intentions and commitments of Neighbourhood Plans and in so doing, refuse the application.

Members questions and comments

• Cllr Taylor was concerned regarding electricity, water and toxic fumes. He sought clarification on the height of the batteries compared to sea level and the flood risk. He also queried the lack of security and monitoring of the proposed site.
• Clarification relating to the self-contained run off tank to be used in the event of a fireand the procedure for dealing with polluted water.
• Concerns regarding there only being one access point to the site which already served an existing development. Cllr Coombs was disappointed that this was not referenced within the officer report.
• Cllr Northam raised that there had been an error in the report at Section 7, paragraph 7.4 page 52 regarding the planning history. 
• Clarity that the operators were different applicants.
• Questions relating to the impact of toxic fumes and fire safety and whether there had been any consideration to development that may be proposed in proximity to the site in the future.
•  
• Cllr Crabb queried the proposed physical security, risk assessments and site management. 
• Cllr Ridout asked the Case Officer to confirm how the tanks would be  filled and wanted assurance that any contaminated water would be removed. She also thanked the officer for the inclusion of useful links in the officer report relating to the suppression system.
• Cllr Coombs noted that the applicant had overcome most issues, however, the main concern was site access and that the need for two access points was previously discussed. Cllr Monks agreed with these comments and was also concerned about safety.
• Cllr Ridout praised the applicant for the work that they done to implement significant change. She was happy to support the proposal.
• Members did not feel that the risks outweighed the benefits, and a safety management plan was needed.
• Cllr Northam felt that the committee did not need sight of the safety management and emergency recovery plans as this would be subject to planning conditions.
• Cllr Bolwell was not concerned regarding the gas suppression system or battery monitoring systems as they gave early warnings. He was also confident that the tank could take contaminated water runoff. However, like other members he was concerned regarding the Plume and site access. Despite this, he raised that site access was already considered in a previous application for a nearby site and from a planning perspective he did not feel as though access was a strong enough material consideration to warrant refusal. Therefore, on that basis, he would support the officer recommendation if a proposal was put forward.
• Cllr Coombs could not identify any information within the report which had assessed the adjacent development and that they would share a single access point from Coldharbour. She recommended deferral to ensure that work was to be done to assess the risk and consider an additional access point.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to defer was recommended and proposed by Cllr Toni Coombs and seconded by Cllr Craig Monks.

Decision: Defer the application to seek further clarification or an amendment regarding an additional access point.