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 presented a visual presentation, including plans and aerial photographs, to outline the site, site context, the proposal, representations, officer assessment and recommendation. The application had been previously deferred in January 2025 to allow officers time to liaise with the applicant for additional information. The update sheet was briefly discussed, and the site location, access roads, and nearby residential properties and emerging/approved developments were identified, along with details of the high-pressure gas pipeline and proposed soft landscaping also being discussed. Since January, the applicant had been asked about the possibility of forming an additional site access, but this was not feasible due to site constraints and land ownership. A response document and Smoke Plume Analysis Report was submitted by the applicant, and the application underwent a full public consultation, with targeted re-consultation of the fire service, police, highways, Chickerell Town Council and ward councillors.

The Case Officer referred to National Fire Chiefs Council guidance, noting that alternative access routes were intended for tactical fire responses, and based on the analysis, there was sufficient distance for fire crews to access the site. The Smoke Plume Analysis Report led to no objections from the Fire and Rescue Service, and the Highways Authority confirmed no safety issues. Dorset Police did not identify any terrorist threats associated with BESS developments. As a result, the Case Officer did not deem further conditions for safety measures necessary. Preventative measures for fire safety were reviewed, including safety designs such as fencing and cameras.

Following the deferral, officers were satisfied that a single access point was acceptable, with no objections from the Fire and Rescue Service. The significant benefits of the development were emphasised, including providing electricity to homes, contributing to tackling the climate emergency, decarbonising the electricity grid, working towards net zero and helping to deliver energy security. In line with the NPPF, the benefits carried significant weight. The Case Officer highlighted the updated conditions, including Condition 8 for a Battery Safety Management Plan and Condition 23 regarding the gas pipeline.

Public Participation

Dr. J Fannon spoke in objection to the proposal. He referred to the document submitted by the applicant in January and discussed the impact of smoke and toxic gases. He cited evidence from a BESS fire in Beijing, where temperatures exceeded the melting point of steel. He warned that a fire in a single container could spread further, and an explosion could cause additional damage. Dr Fannon criticised the applicant’s reliance on computer calculations, arguing that the outcomes from other BESS fires demonstrate the potential dangers. The public objector stressed that reliance on computer models alone was insufficient and noted that BESS developments did not bring significant economic benefits in terms of employment while imposing negative impacts on residential communities.

Ms Kelsall spoke in objection to the proposal. Initially, she was pleased upon seeing that the applicant had commissioned a plume study in response to previous concerns. However, after reviewing the study, the speaker expressed disappointment. Citing the Energy Research and Social Science journal, Ms Kelsall pointed out that the applicants had not disclosed the limitations of the hazard modelling software that they had used. Specifically, the study assumed very low wind speeds, which would have caused the pollutant cloud to mix with the surrounding air. As a result, the concentration of gases in the chemical cloud may remain higher than predicted. The speaker raised concerns about the health threats posed by toxins, she urged the committee to refuse the application.

Mr Perrot spoke in objection to the proposal; he stated that the reasons for the previous refusal were not adequately detailed. He expressed concerns that the smoke plume would have affected the site entrance and that the lack of a safe additional access could delay firefighting efforts. Noted that the smoke plume study did not address secondary access, and highlighted issues with the narrow track, which would hinder firefighting due to the lack of passing places. Mr Perrot also raised concerns about insufficient space between containers. He emphasised that, to maintain continuity, the committee should refuse the application, as nothing had changed since the previous refusal. He urged the committee to prioritize safety and reject the application.

The agent thanked the committee for the opportunity to provide further context and clarification in support of the application. Mr Duncan acknowledged the public interest but stated that much of the information in the objections was not evidence-based. He emphasised that the planning system should be guided by material planning considerations, expert advice, and national and local policies, and urged the committee to assess the application through professional input and not speculation. In response to concerns raised after the previous committee, further consultations were held with the Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service, the Highways Authority, and the Police, all of whom confirmed that they had no objections. Addressing concerns over access, it was reiterated that single-point access was common in various developments and that the access provided met safety requirements. The agent also responded to concerns about the toxic plume modelling and explained that the analysis was conducted by Greenfire Solutions, an independent and highly qualified fire safety and environmental consultant, with a strong track record of credibility, including advising the National Fire Chiefs Council.

Cllr N Hudson spoke on behalf of Chickerell Town Council and raised concerns that the application was in the wrong place due to its proximity to housing. He highlighted that the plume had two different heights within the report and expressed doubt over the accuracy of the details provided. The accuracy of the wind direction information was also questioned. Cllr Hudson discussed the potential costs of public evacuation, citing the impact on residents, nearby football and police stadiums, and numerous schools within the local area. The Chickerell Town Councillor mentioned the significant public funds required to plan for evacuation and pointed out that different battery types produced different toxins. He hoped the committee would refuse the application.

The Local Ward member expressed his support for Chickerell Town Council. He noted that every objection had some form of mitigation. Stating that the Town Council had a strong objection and that no one had yet been found to support the proposal. Cllr S Clifford emphasised the importance of considering the views and concerns of the community and reminded members that they were there to represent the Town Council's views, not to act on behalf of the officers. To conclude, he stated that it was the right application but in the wrong location.

Members questions and comments

• Material of acoustic fence and the visual impact.
• Queried whether the access road would have remained passable in the event that a vehicle was not located in the designated passing bay.
• Maintenance period of equipment.
• Questioned whether other BESS developments were a similar proximity to residential developments.
• Responsibility of the maintenance of the access road.
• Cllr Rideout sought clarification as there had been no mention within the officer report of CCTV on the access road. 
• Questioned whether there would be a direct community benefit for energy.
• Cllr Tooke inquired about the potential implications for the BESS if the access road was no longer viable.
• Queried the suitability of the BESS monitoring systems.
• Members requested an overview of the officer’s final decision on acceptable site access.
• Cllr Northam expressed reassurance that the Fire and Rescue Service had reviewed the access arrangements and were satisfied with them. He also welcomed the involvement of Greenfire Solutions and noted that the inclusion of the Battery Management Plan should provide reassurance to residents.
• Cllr Bolwell had previous concerns regarding the plume, however, noted that consultees were specialists.
• Members requested an additional condition which detailed the responsibility of the maintenance of the access road to ensure that it was always of a maintainable standard for use by the emergency services.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report, update sheet and presentation; the written representations; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to Delegate authority to the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and to the Area Manager for the Southern and Western Development Management Team to GRANT the planning application, as recommended subject to conditions set out within the officer report and update sheet and the additional condition for a maintenance plan for access roads and amended wording of informative 9, was proposed by Cllr David Northam, and seconded by Cllr Dave Bolwell. 

Decision: Delegate authority to the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and to the Area Manager for the Southern and Western Development Management Team to grant the planning application as per the officer recommendation subject to conditions set out within the officer report and update sheet and the additional condition for a maintenance plan for access roads and amended wording of informative 9 regarding CCTV and access roads, with the wording of the additional condition and amended informative to be first agreed with the Chair of the committee.