Agenda item

Prior to the consideration of this item. Councillor S. Nock stated that he was registered to speak on this application and requested clarification as to whether he needed to leave the meeting room during the presentation and public speaking on this application as this was the advice he had received from the Council’s Principal Solicitor – Governance earlier that day.

 

[At this point in the meeting there was a brief adjournment from 18:09 to 18:12].

 

Having reconvened, the Legal Advisor to the Planning Committee at the meeting stated that he felt it appropriate that Councillor S. Nock remained in the public gallery during consideration of the application and whilst the public speakers addressed the Committee Members. Once he had spoken on this matter, Councillor S. Nock would be required to leave the meeting room and take no part in the debate nor the vote thereon.

 

Officers reminded Members that this application had been deferred at the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 29^th July 2025. The deferment had been requested by Members in order to address the comments raised by Hereford and Worcestershire Fire and Rescue Service (HWFS).

 

Since then, discussions had taken place between the local Planning Authority (Bromsgrove District Council), HWFS and the applicant. This had resulted in the updated application as presented to the Planning Committee at this meeting.

 

A copy of the Committee Update was provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.

 

The application site was located in approximately 3.88 hectares of land which comprised of agricultural land, which could be considered rural. Of the 3.88 hectares of the application site, 1 hectare was allocated to the developable site area.

 

Officers drew Members’ attention to page 92 of the main agendapack which detailed the proposed layout, supported infrastructure, security fencing and landscaping works. The layout had been amended following discussions with HWFS and now proposed three separate access points to the battery compound and two into the substation. It was noted that a sufficient number of passing points had now been incorporated into the layout of the site.

 

Access to the site was from an existing access point on Illey Lane, which would be upgraded as required to provide suitable access. The compound site would be fenced and an appropriate landscape scheme implemented. The remaining area around the perimeter would be utilised for further planting to include woodland hedgerows, trees, grassland and wildflower planting.

 

The proposed development had a time limit of thirty-five years. After which time all the infrastructure would be removed from the site.

 

The Point of Connection for the site would be at the Kitwell Substation, located approximately 2 kilometres east from the application site on Kitwell Lane.

 

Officers noted it was important and necessary to deliver improvements to energy infrastructure and management for the future. It was also important to ensure that the necessary infrastructure was in place to support the management of the National Electricity Grid.

 

It was reported that the application was in line with the principal policies of the Bromsgrove District Plan (BDP) and in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in that it supported the transition to low carbon options, improved future energy resilience and renewable energy infrastructure.

 

Officers noted that the application site was within the Green Belt. It was important to establish whether the proposal consisted of inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of BDP and the BDP4 framework. Officers highlighted that paragraph 153 of the framework stated that inappropriate development was by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances. In paragraph 154 of BDP4 framework there were exemptions when development might be acceptable in the Green Belt, however further exemptions had been included since the framework was amended in December 2024 in particular paragraph 155 regarding Grey Belt. Members’ attention was drawn to sections 11.7 to 11.39 of the officers report which contained a detailed assessment as to whether the site was Grey Belt rather than Green Belt. Overall, the proposal did not strongly contribute to the three Green Belt purposes required to be considered in a Grey Belt assessment. The relevant criteria contained in paragraph 155 were met and therefore the development was not considered inappropriate within the Green Belt. For robustness and completeness an assessment regarding Green Belt matters had also been undertaken.

 

Officers informed the Committee that the Highways Agency had been consulted with and did not object, subject to the conditions included in the report and considered there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or severe impact on the road network.

 

In terms of archaeological matters, it was reported that the site was located in close proximity to a number of heritage assets. However, the application was subject to an Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment (HEDA) and had also been assessed by the Council’s Conservation Officers. Both had concurred that there would be a degree of less than substantial harm to the significance and setting of the Grade II Oatenfields Farmhouse through the proposed development.

 

Flooding had been raised by members of the public, along with the leakage of chemicals. However, North Worcestershire Water Management (NWWM) had been consulted and had raised no objections. However, a number of pre-commencement planning conditions had been made in respect of a detailed surface water drainage scheme and Construction Surface Water Management Plan.

 

In the event of a fire, water used to treat this facility would be fully contained in that surface water would drain through the internal drainage basin into the attenuation basin on site. This basin would be lined in order to prevent any leeching into the ground. Overall, the drainage matters were deemed to be acceptable.

 

The Biodiversity Metric report had been updated to reflect the changes to the proposal and in doing so the Biodiversity Net Gains (BNG) would be delivered by the development. Comments had been received regarding whether it was appropriate to include the Sustainable Urban Drainage System as part of the BNG calculations. It was considered primary use was a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDs) was acceptable, in the unlikely event of a fire, which could result in an impact on the on-site habitats, this would be addressed as part of the ongoing habitat monitoring required under BNG. The developer must maintain significant on-site habitats that they created or enhanced for a minimum of thirty years. These habitats would be subject to a monitoring schedule that ensured they achieved the target condition and distinctiveness that was stated in the Biodiversity Metric report.

 

Further detail was provided in respect of the changes to fire safety aspects following discussions with the HWFS. There had been numerous objections raised regarding fire risk at this application site, which included water contamination and emergency access. The applicants were advised to consider the guidance available from the National Fire Chief’s Council (NFCC). This guidance highlighted 12 key areas of fire safety in BESS developments. Due to the large number of concerns raised on the matter of fire safety the application had been deferred in July 2025. However, since then, key issues including the fire safety plan, had been addressed by the applicant to the satisfaction of HWFS subject to the conditions outlined within the officers report.

 

It was reported that the revised fire water management plan exceeded the NFCC guidance minimum requirements and that two hydrants were proposed as part of the development. Furthermore, HWFS were satisfied with the turning space within the location along with the updated access arrangements. In terms of the container separation, the layout of the site complied with updated guidance which was considered to supersede the NFCC guidance regarding 6m separation. No specific modelling had been required regarding explosions and vapour cloud risk due to the distance to nearby properties.

 

The Emergency Response Plan was to be agreed pre-operation via a planning condition that dealt with hazard information procedures, environmental investigation training and communications protocols. In terms of contaminated water management, fire water containment system to be lined an isolated from the SUDs and along with a full drainage and disposal plan required by condition.

 

Subject to the conditions outlined in their consultation comments, HWFS were satisfied with the revised proposals as discussed with the applicant and now agreed. Ultimately there was no compelling evidence that the site posed an unacceptable fire risk.

 

Therefore, it was considered that the proposal was acceptable in principle and held significant weight in the contribution to mitigating climate change, and energy security, the potential for biodiversity net gains and landscape enhancements and economic benefits. Which were all deemed to outweigh the temporary moderate adverse visual impact effects and less substantial harm to heritage assets.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. A. Perry, speaking on behalf of local residents in objection to the application, addressed the Committee.

 

Mr. G. Thorpe, the Planning Agent for Grenergy Renewables UK Ltd, addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant.

 

Mr. I. McGregor addressed the Committee on behalf of Hunnington Parish Council, who had objected to the application.

 

Councillor S. Nock, Ward Member also addressed the Committee.

 

During consideration of the application, Members raised several questions. These were as follows:

 

·       Would there be a fire alarm warning system available on site, should a fire break out? – Officers confirmed that this would be included as part of the planning conditions. Specifically, condition 28 which dealt with an emergency response plan.

·       Whether the site was, in fact, located on Green or Grey Belt land? – Members were reminded that there were five purposes of Green belt. Three needed to be evaluated in order to assess Grey Belt. The purposes applicable for this proposal were as follows:

a)    Purpose a – Sprawl

b)    Purpose b – Merging

c)     Purpose d - To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

 

The purposes of the Green Belt, as detailed above, did not apply to this proposal and therefore the proposal site had been considered Grey Belt by Officers when applying the criterion and therefore not inappropriate development. However, if Members were of the opinion that the site was in the Green Belt there would still be grounds for granting planning permission under Very Special Circumstances as it satisfied the Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy, therefore making it a material planning consideration.

·       Location of access points within the site – Officers explained that there were two access points within the site to the battery storage areas. However, there was one access point to the whole compound which HWFS were satisfied with providing there was enough access and room for movement for fire vehicles within the site if necessary.

·       Public safety within the proposed site – Members stated that they were disappointed that the public safety requirements would be satisfied by conditions rather than being an integral part of the application. Particularly as this application had been deferred previously predominantly due to the areas of concern highlighted by the HWFS. Furthermore, it was noted that some of the conditions i.e. the approval of the fire safety precaution statement, detailed layout and emergency response plan lay with HWFS. This seemed an unsatisfactory outcome as it may result in the Local Planning Authority approving the application only for the HWFS to veto if it was not satisfied with the plans included in the conditions as detailed above. Officers addressed Members concerns regarding this matter further and explained that there were four conditions in total regarding fire safety and two of which read as follows:

 

·     Approval by the local planning authority ‘in consultation’ with the fire and rescue service

 

The two further conditions read as follows:

 

·     The local planning authority and the fire and rescue service

 

If Members were concerned about the responsibility of the Fire Service in this matter and to be consistent then all conditions could read:

 

·       Approval by the local planning authority ‘in consultation’ with the fire and rescue service

 

However, Members were reminded that the Local Planning Authority was a public authority and if not happy with the HWFS response, it would be acting unreasonably to discharge the condition without being completely satisfied and the development would not be implemented. It was noted that the Fire Service were experts in the matter of fire safety and the reason their opinion was sought in these matters, however the Local Planning Authority were still responsible for discharging the conditions only when they had been met satisfactorily.

 

Officers commented that these kinds of conditions were not unusual for these types of applications, as these specific types of plans were not able to be confirmed or agreed at the application stage. It was noted that the technology used within Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) evolved quickly and any information submitted at the application stage may be superseded quickly as a result. Ultimately, the Local Planning Authority, the Fire Service and the applicant had discussed the conditions highlighted by Members and all parties were satisfied with the conditions, which would ensure that the relevant parties were satisfied with the technical information available at the appropriate time.

·       The reliance on electricity generation storage – Members were concerned of the resilience in using this type of energy and that there have been several instances recently internationally when the National Grid had failed.

·     Monitoring of the conditions – Members requested assurance from Officers that the conditions contained within the application would be monitored effectively to ensure that they were implemented effectively and required no alterations. Officers reported that as detailed earlier in the meeting the applicant had agreed to the wording within the conditions in respect of the fire safety issues previously highlighted and if the wording within these conditions were changed or not satisfied then the application would come back to the Planning Committee for further consideration.

·       Container Separation Distances – The final response from HWFS (dated 1^st October 2025) was queried in respect of the container separation distances information provided to them. It was noted by Members that there had been no fire modelling provided to HWFS, however they had no further comments on this matter. Members questioned whether HWFS had been challenged regarding the lack of response in this matter. Officers explained that the suggested separation distance between containers be 6 metres as detailed in the guidance. However, if the separation distances should be reduced clear evidence would be needed to be produced by the applicant regarding the proposed distances. The Fire Service was a non-statutory consultee and the applicant should follow the NFCC guidance and wherever possible the applicant should comply with this guidance. It was noted by Officers that although guidance as available included within it was the statement “Every BESS installation will be different, and Fire and Rescue services should not limit themselves to the content of this guidance.”

There were also queries regarding the layout of the containers within the storage unit. It was explained that the layout currently was within the 6 metre margins, as detailed in the guidance and that two battery containers could count as one unit due to their size.

·       Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) – Members requested clarification on the impact the extra access within the site had on BNG. It was reported that there had been some impact, however the BNG still provided in excess of the 10 per cent required by a major planning application.

 

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted, subject to the Conditions as detailed on pages 77 - 85 of the main agenda pack.

 

[At this point in the meeting there was a brief adjournment from 19:47 to 19:52].