Agenda item

Installation of an energy storage facility, including battery containers, power conversion units, transformers, substation, grid connection infrastructure, vehicular access and associated works

The Committee considered an application for Installation of an energy storage facility, including battery containers, power conversion units, transformers, substation, grid connection infrastructure, vehicular access and associated works at Land South of Spennymoor Electricity Substation (south), Thinford Lane, Thinford (for copy see file of minutes).

C Shields, Senior Planning Officer, provided a detailed presentation on the application which included a site location plan, aerial photographs and site photographs.

The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee of additional comments which had been received.

Campaign for Protection of Rural England (CPRE) had sent an additional letter to advise that there was no reference to guidance issued by the Energy Institute.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the guidance largely repeated local and national planning policy and was therefore determined unnecessary.  They had raised the risk of fire and explosion which was included in the guidance and although this was an operational issue, the Applicant had agreed a fire prevention management plan to mitigate any risks.

There Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there had been another letter from a resident raising an issue with the description of the location as it was not south of Spennymoor, however the description referred to was south of Spennymoor Electricity Substation.  They also raised an issue with the historical nature of the site, however no objections had been raised by design and conservation or archaeological officers and geographical surveys had confirmed no significant findings however it was still recommended for trial trenching to be carried out prior to work commencing.  He confirmed that 25 letters of objection had been received not 24 as stated.

Mr R Cowen, CPRE had expressed concerns as outlined and although he accepted the area was degraded by the current substation, in his opinion the landscape points raised by local residents were still relevant.

Mr Cowen was very concerned about the risk of fire and he disagreed that it was not a material planning consideration.  He had seen the content of the letter submitted by the Applicant and it contained information that he should have accompanied the application.  As it stood, his concerns had been answered.

Mr Keven Storey objected to the proposal.  The Committee were not being asked if battery storage should be built, or for their opinions on green energy, but were being asked if it should be placed in arable land, in front of a town with limited used for recreation and exercise.  The impact of which could not be understated, it was devastating.

Mr Storey advised that the application was contrary to policy and it was stated throughout the report that it would cause harm.  The Applicant had not demonstrated a need for this development at this location.  Noise had not been addressed and despite assurances residents would be the ones to suffer. 

There were brownfield sites located near to the site, which were only being avoided due to the expense of cabling, however the applicant should have been directed to investigate the potential use of these sites.

In summary, Mr Storey advised that the Committee should not approve the application due to the landscape harm and loss of amenity.  He also confirmed that there was an ongoing consultation for another similar development within metres of the same site.  This had not been referred to in the report, but he believed the Council had a duty to consider the cumulative effect.

This consultation was with regards to another battery storage unit planned for the western area of the site.  If the application was approved Mr Storey suggested that it would set a precedent for the other proposals.  He asked the Committee to withhold the decision or refuse the application for Officers to consider the cumulative impact.  Mr Storey suggested that to make a decision without viewing the site was irresponsible as it was not possible to see the issue or assess the impact.

Ms Jenna Folkard addressed the Committee and gave a background to the operational changes of electricity.  Due to the increase in supply and demand energy companies had to match the energy they produced to the amount generated.  These facilities were essential to ensure stable energy systems.

This project would be adjacent to the existing structure, away from residential properties and outside of any landscape designations.  The total area was 4.6 hectares of which 80% was considered subgrade land and used for biofuel production and cattle feed.  The field would be screened and significant landscape plan was proposed.

After considering feedback from residents the containers would be a nonreflective colour, further reducing the visual impact.  The site design included enhanced biodiversity measures including woodland planting, the creation of a pond and other habitats for wildlife resulting in a biodiversity net gain of 25%, much higher than the required standard.

Measures were in place to maintain the public right of way throughout the construction and visibility following completion would be limited by woodland planting.

Ms Folkard confirmed that this type of energy was amongst the cheapest forms of new electric generation and would benefit the UK energy grid network and all consumers. It would also provide £150k business rates to Durham County Council every year to fund services.  The application had been subject to comprehensive environmental and technical reviews by statutory consultees, and no issues had been raised that could not be addressed by condition.  She asked the planning Committee to approve in accordance with the recommendation.

Ms Folkard finally took the opportunity to respond to the concerns regarding fire risk.  Whilst there was no policy in planning that required an assessment, it had been taken into account through the design process and in June the Applicant had submitted a letter which detailed the most credible risk and several layers of protection to mitigate it.  The Applicant was the largest independent renewable energy company, with health and safety paramount and they were confident they were leading on this matter.

In response a number questions from Members, Ms Folkard explained how power which came from the grid would be generated and stored and confirmed that there was no current storage facility on site at the moment, which was the reason for the application.

In response to a question from Councillor McKeon, Ms Folkard explained the energy that was generated had to be balanced with use and as renewable energy generation was intermittent and dependant on weather conditions, the balance being altered could result in failure and blackouts.  By drawing on the Spennymoor substation, this battery system would discharge power back into the grid and deal with these imbalances.

Councillor Jopling queried why the Applicant did not look at the alternative brownfield sites in the area and Ms Folkard advised that any energy storage system had to be next to, or as close as possible to the substation.  If not, there would be underground cabling and overhead lines but also the further away the storage, the less efficient it was.  This location had a viable connection, which is why the site had been targeted.

Councillor Martin was sympathetic to concerns raised by residents, however the planning officers had done their utmost to ensure the facility would be shielded from view.  This type of facility was needed for future and given the choice he would prefer a battery storage facility than a power station or nuclear powerplant.  The Applicant had demonstrated the rationale of the location and it was not within the Committees remit to suggest it would be better suited elsewhere.  It was not near any housing and would cause zero disturbance, therefore Councillor Martin moved approval of the application.

Councillor McKeon confirmed that the site was near to the boundary of her own division.  There were no planning grounds that the Committee could put forward that would be sufficient at appeal. There had been a power cut to the north in Parkhill earlier in year during a major storm, the frequency of which would only increase due to climate change.  There was an aging infrastructure nationally for power and the Council needed to support renewable energy at some point.  She understood where the objectors were coming from but there were no legal reasons to refuse the application, therefore she seconded the proposal.

Councillor Hunt considered this to be a good application and whilst she appreciated the need for these facilities, however she could not understand why greenbelt and agricultural land were being used to build them and could therefore not support the application.

Councillor Molloy also understood the comments from Ms Folkard regarding the location of the storage, however it did contravene some landscape policies and if it went ahead, the Council could be faced with another application to the north of the site from a solar farm which had been refused on the same policies.  In addition, this was arable land and irrespective of what the land was used for, it would be lost, so he would not support the application.

Councillor Bell was also concerned regarding the loss of an agricultural field.  In response to a question regarding the energy source, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the energy coming into the substation would be representative of the national mix which was typically 50% renewable.

The Senior Planning Officer acknowledged that it was contrary to various policies however this did not mean that it should be refused, there were other considerations which had enabled it to conform, and it had been demonstrated that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the harm.

In response to a question from Councillor Richardson, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that there was a consultation but no planning application and the Council could therefore not consider the cumulative effect.  He emphasised that at enquiry stage, it could not be assumed that an application would come forward.

In response to a question from the Chair, Councillor J Quinn explained the location of the consultation site to the immediate right of the substation according to the map included in the consultation.

Councillor Marshall acknowledged that locations for battery storage was limited and highlighted the stability these facilities created.  It was difficult for a Committee to argue the need to consider renewables and supporting the grid but vote against them due to them taking up arable land, as unfortunately most of the facilities to connect to were located in fields.  There were no planning grounds to refuse the application and he supported the scheme.

In response to a question from the Chair, Ms Folkard confirmed that the scheme under consultation was not by the same Applicant, but she highlighted that it may not come to a full application stage.

Resolved

That application be APPROVED subject to the completion of a planning obligation under Section 39 of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the conditions outlined in the report.