Battery Storage appeal dismissed on pollution risk

Our client Hawkchurch Action Group (“HAG”) opposed the Battery Energy Storage System (“BESS”) and, following LPA refusal, was a Rule 6 party to the appeal. A BESS is a storage system and does not produce energy. HAG called expert witnesses who presented evidence that there was a serious risk of contaminated fire water run-off reaching the village water supply, resulting in the appeal being dismissed.

The Decision Letter (“DL”) identifies four main issues:

• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including any potential cumulative impact;
• whether the proposal represents a renewable energy or low carbon scheme for the purpose of the development plan;
• the effect of the proposal on the use of best and most versatile agricultural land and whether any loss of such land would be justified; and
• whether there is sufficient information on the health and safety measures proposed and the extent to which there would be significant risk to local residents and the environment.

On the main issue of safety, leading to the appeal being dismissed, the Inspector accepted HAG’s uncontested evidence that 10 of the village’s 32 wells/boreholes and springs are directly below the groundwater of the appeal site and 2 are immediately adjacent to its eastern boundary. The groundwater permeates into the aquifer which, via boreholes, supplies approximately 12 houses with their water, hence its quality is critical to the health and well-being of local residents.

The DL refers to “unknown risks associated with BESS” citing the risk of uncontrolled fire known as thermal run. In identifying these risks, the DL records:  ”Whilst there are nationally a good number of battery storage facilities, they are not so long established to prove that the safety risk is not significant; indeed in 2020 a fire occurred at a battery storage facility in Liverpool” noting ”the Appellant accepted that there is a risk, and the point is to reduce the risk to as low as possible.”

The inspector found that the overcrowded site layout failed to comply with guidance published by the National Fire Chief’s Council issued in November 2022. The DL records “this particular proposal fall[s] short of the national recommended standard without safety being demonstrated, with the risk compounded by only one access and unclear measures on containment of firewater and the potential to contaminate the aquifer, as well as the likely need for widespread importation of firewater.

Therefore, based upon the evidence before the Inquiry I find that it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not be a significant risk to local residents and the environment.”

On the other issues HAG raised, on landscape harm the Inspector reasoned that as the proposal would cause harm to the landscape it would be contrary to LPA Strategies 7, 39 and 46 of the Local Plan. Similarly, it would be contrary to paragraph 180(b) of National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”), which requires recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

On the issue of whether the proposal was low carbon or renewable, although a BESS does not produce energy, the Inspector referred to recent Planning Practice Guidance and the National Planning Statement and reasoned that a BESS represents a low carbon project for the purpose of the development plan and the proposal would not be contrary to Strategy 39.

On the issue of loss of BMV agricultural land, the Inspector reasoned the BESS would conflict with paragraph 180(b) of the NPPF in terms of eroding the quality of the agricultural land, but in terms of the whether such loss would be justified, this would be offset by the proposal’s use in energy management in accordance with paragraph 8 of the NPPF.