Agenda item

Erection of a Battery Energy Storage System with associated infrastructure, site levelling works, access, landscaping and ancillary works [Osbaldwick and Derwent Ward]

Members considered a Major Full Application from Net Zero Fourteen Limited for the Erection of a Battery Energy Storage System with associated infrastructure, site levelling works, access, landscaping and ancillary works.

The Head of Planning and Development outlined the application and gave a presentation on it, advising that Members needed to base their decision on the elevation plans. She was asked and explained that there was no detail in the planning site in relation to the proposed extension of the Travellers site.

The Senior Planning Officer gave an update noting that an updated cover letter from the Agent, noting that the discharge rate had been corrected in the document to 1.93 l/s. Additional representations had also been received, taking the letters of support to 13. A petition had also been received from a Shared Voices email and as the Local Planning Authority was unable to verify the submissions, they could not be considered individually. There had also been a letter in support of refusal from Cllr Warters, which was included in the update.

Public Speakers

John Cossam spoke in support of the application. He noted that he lived on Hull Road, which was 5 minutes from the site and that he tried to live ecofriendly. He explained that there was a number of reasons stopping people from going green and that the battery farm addressed the technological need. He added that the battery farm was an excellent way of storing energy and would allow the absorption of low energy in a climate emergency.

Steven Gough (NetZero Fourteen Ltd) spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant. He noted that there were 100 representations in support of the application. He addressed the four recommended reasons for refusal in relation to the Green Belt, very special circumstances and battery storage. He noted that the visual impacts were localised and the on site boundary was well screen. Regarding fire safety he noted that the North Yorkshire fire authority had not objected and that they (the applicant) had commissioned an independent fire expert. He added that the best and most versatile land was grade 2 and 3 and that the proposal could be found acceptable on its own merits.

Members asked Stephen Cough a number of questions to which he explained that:

·        The NFCC guidance regarding the distance of 6m between units was guidance, not policy. There was two points of access into the battery compound and the safety expert commissioned concluded that the application was in line with NFCC guidance.

·        The author of the report was not a qualified safety engineer and was an expert in safety. He added that North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service had raised no objection to the application.

·        How the electricity was sent to the storage units.

·        There would be no disruption to the infrastructure.

·        York needed battery storage and Osbaldwick was the only location for the battery storage.

·        Regarding the exploration of other sites, they needed to understand the capacity on the network and then looks at sites, working with the owners of the sites identified. He noted that the only outstanding point with the scheme was planning permission.

·        All the sites they were dealing with were of similar spacing. The NFCC guidance, which was not yet updated, reduced the space between battery storage. He added that the spacing satisfied the manufacturers guidance.

·        There was pressure on getting battery storage to the grid and they were trying to improve battery storage.

·        The appeals for other applications were all Green Belt sites.

·        The Energy Act 2023 changed to make energy storage its own component. The value of energy storage systems like the application one would come into their own in time.

·        As the grid transitioned from fossil to renewable, there was a need to be able to store energy, and the battery storage supported the grid in the transition.

·        An explanation was given on how battery storage compared to air compression and pump systems.

·        Regarding the weight put on NFCC guidance, there was guidance regarding safety but it was guidance. The assessor had looked at the manufacturers guidance and concluded the scheme was safe.

·        The safety expert was chosen by reputation, qualifications and experience and was an independent assessor.

Members then asked officers questions to which they responded:

·        North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service had said that they won’t object or support the application and they referred to the guidance.

·        Significant weight was placed on national guidance.

·         Officers did not consider the Principal Consultant at a Risk Consultancy Firm to constitute a fire risk engineer.

·        There was one access point to the site according to the guidance.

·        There were three cases granted at appeal and officers had considered information from other relevant cases. Regarding the appeals, each case was considered on their own merits and were under a different set of circumstances.

·        The NPPF did not specify types of energy storage and just stated energy storage.

·        In the NPPF the scheme would be considered inappropriate development.

·        Officers had given substantial weight to the energy storage and had concluded that it could not be guaranteed that it was renewable.

·        Members needed to be confident that fire safety would not cause an issue and there was legislation that covered certain aspects and policy needed to be taken into consideration. Fire and Rescue had advised what guidance needed to be followed.

·        If the application was approved, the application could not come back regarding access as the single access would already have been granted.

·         The comments of the landscape officer were noted and Members were advised that the landscape officer was a landscape architect with necessary qualifications.

Following debate, Cllr Ayre proposed the officer to refuse the application. This was seconded by Cllr Cullwick. The Senior Lawyer reminded Members of the very special circumstances to exist in Green Belt cases in clearly outweighing Green Belt harm. Following a vote with six voting in favour, two against and two abstentions, it was.

Resolved: That the application be refused.

Reasons:

1)   The proposed battery energy storage system would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The development would be significantly harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and conflict would arise with purposes a, b and c of paragraph 143 of the NPPF of including land within the Green Belt. Substantial weight is attached to the harm to the Green Belt. The benefits associated with the proposal, would be insufficient to clearly outweigh the harms identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the inappropriate development do not exist. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraphs 152-155 of the NPPF (2023) and policy GB1 of Draft Local Plan (2018, as amended 2023).

2)   The proposed development would have a considerably adverse impact on the landscape character of the site, due to the addition of built forms of an industrial appearance that would be detrimental to the landscape character. The proposal would extend the sense of industry associated with Osbaldwick industrial estate and Osbaldwick substation, into what is currently an arable field that is contiguous with the open countryside surrounding the city of York. The proposed development would be a prominent encroachment into the open countryside and would be viewed as an incongruous feature in the landscape, in particular in dormant seasons. It would not be sympathetic to local landscape character and is a considerable distance from the existing energy infrastructure to the south. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 135 of the NPPF (2023) and policies CC1, D1 and D2 of the Draft Local Plan (2018, as amended).

3)   The detailed layout of battery containers, turning points, passing places and number of access points would contravene the expert national guidance and has not been demonstrated to be safe. The Planning Practise Guidance and the North Yorkshire Fire Service are clear that the Grid Scale Battery Energy Storage System Planning BESS Design Guidance should be taken into account when determining applications. In this instance it has not been demonstrated that the development will be made safe from fire hazards in conflict with policy CC1 and ENV2 of the Draft Local Plan (2018, as amended), the Grid Scale Battery Energy Storage System Planning BESS Design Guidance and paragraph 032 of the Planning Practise Guidance.

4)   The application site is undeveloped Grade 3 agricultural land and the proposal would see the temporary loss of 3.4 hectares of good to moderate agricultural land. The proposal is in conflict with policy CC1 of the Draft Local Plan (2018) and paragraph 180 (b) of the NPPF (2023).

[The meeting adjoured from 5.53pm until 6.03pm. Cllr Clarke rejoined the meeting at 6.03pm].