Agenda item

Ward

 

Halliford and Sunbury West

 

Proposal

 

The construction and operation of a Battery Energy Storage System of up to 100 megawatts electrical output with a total capacity of circa 200 megawatt hours, associated site access and partial cable route, with associated work

 

Recommendation

 

The application is recommended for approval subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 8.3 of the report.

Description:

 

The construction of and operation of a Battery Energy Storage System of up to 100 megawatts electrical output with a total capacity of circa 200 megawatt hours, associated site access and partial cable route, with associated work.

 

Additional Information:

 

One additional letter of representation was received raising concerns regarding fire safety.

 

Another letter from a local resident was sent to Surrey Fire and Rescue and copied to the Council.

 

A letter was also sent directly to members of the Planning Committee raising objections to the proposal.

 

In the report there are references to 50 battery container units. This should in fact be 26 battery container units each comprising 2 batteries, with 50 batteries in total.

 

In paragraph 3.5 reference is made to an access point being created under the M3 Motorway. This is incorrect and no access is proposed under the M3.

 

Public Speaking:

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Nigel Spooner representing the Charlton Village, Lower Sunbury and Shepperton Residents’ Associations spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

1.    This still represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt

2.    No evidence that the site could contribute to a more reliable, affordable and sustainable energy supply.

3.    Application site is remote from any major renewable energy generation

4.    There is no need for this to be on this application site and therefore there are no ‘Very Special Circumstances’.

5.    The potential hazardous nature of this technology is being ignored.

6.    Risks relate to a battery ‘thermal runway’ fire and its potential impact on nearby sensitive receptors such as a reservoir, water treatment works, housing and schools.

7.    Safety concerns have been realised in other site in the UK.

8.    National Fire Chiefs Council Guidance does not appear to have been property followed.

9.    The E.A. have not have not been specific in defining how much water would be needed to quench a battery thermal-runaway fire.

10.This application is entirely inappropriate, unnecessary and hazardous.

 

 

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that the application was now smaller than the original submitted and that neither the Surrey Fire and Rescue Authority nor the Environment Agency had submitted any objections.

 

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Tim Mole, the applicant’s agent, spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:

 

1.    Applicant has engaged with the community and consultees.

2.    Two public consultation evens had been held and a series of changes and improvements had been made to address local concerns.

3.    The application has been scrutinised by the Council’s officers and a robust set of safeguards and planning conditions have been put in place.

4.    The E.A. withdrew their objections after their concerns were addressed.

5.    Surrey Fire and Rescue Service raised no objections.

6.    Measures have been agreed for habitat creation and biodiversity net gain.

7.    Site will be monitored 24/7 from a UK based control room.

8.    Project will contribute to decarbonisation.

9.    Construction impacts such as traffic, dust and noise will be controlled through approved hours and routing.

 

Debate:

During the debate the following key issues were raised:

 

1.    Inappropriate development of a Green Belt site.

2.    Concerns over the access road to the site.

3.    Don’t think that this application meets the criteria for ‘special circumstances’.

4.    Application site is close to vulnerable area.

5.    Using fossil fuels negates any benefit from the proposed scheme.

6.    The Council has declared a Climate Emergency.

7.    Landscaping scheme needs to be of a good standard.

8.    The applicant would need to restore the site back to its original condition once the ‘useful life’ span has lapsed.

9.    Major fires have occurred in the UK at other battery storage sites.

10. Thermal runway would threaten nearby houses.

11. More green energy is needed for the future.

12. Questionable whether this site would help reduce CO2 emissions.

13. Clean energy is desirable and a battery storage facility is a good idea but not on this particular site.

14. Impact on local residents would be great if a fire broke out.

 

Councillor Howkins requested a named vote.

 

For	Councillors Burrell and Geraci -2 votes
Against	Councillors Bateson, Beatty, Beecher, Buck, Chandler, Clarke, Grant, Howkins, Lee, Nichols, Rutherford, Woodward, - 12 votes
Abstain	0 votes

 

 

The motion to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 8.3 of the report FELL.

 

It was proposed by Councillor Beecher and seconded by Councillor Clarke that the application is overturned and refused for the following reason:

 

The development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and there are no very special circumstances that outweigh the harm, contrary to Saved Policy GB1 of the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 and the NPPF 2024.

 

The Committee voted on the new motion as follows:

 

For – 13

Against – 0

Abstain - 1

 

Decision:

 

The application was overturned and refused for the following reason:

 

The development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and there are no very special circumstances that outweigh the harm, contrary to Saved Policy GB1 of the Spelthorne Borough Local Plan 2001 and the NPPF 2024.