Woolpots Solar Farm and Battery Storage Unit - ZB23/02015/FUL

Further briefing for North Yorkshire Strategic Planning Committee  addressing points raised at the hearing on 13 August.

Question and Answer	Comment
Q.  Does the law say we ‘have to have’ solar panels? A.  No	Planning Authorities are rightly encouraged to facilitate renewable energy generation but a number of national and local rules and policies aim to ensure that such developments are sited in appropriate locations, see NPPF paras 180, 181, PPG on Renewables, HP RM6, HP S5.
Q. Will there be industrial style security fencing?   Will it ‘look like a prison’? A. Yes and quite probably.	The Outline Battery Storage Safety Management Plan says that the BESS will be surrounded by its own security fencing. There is no description or photograph of this but the plan says it will contain ‘prominent warning signs’ etc. In tiny print on the Applicant’s plan of the new High Voltage substation, it says there will be a ‘2.4m High Galvanised Security Pallisade fence’ but a) no pictures of this have been provided and b) we believe a HV substation may also be required to have electrified wiring above the fence which has not been mentioned. The Applicant  has declined to provide details of the security  fencing around the BESS  saying it will be determined ‘during the detailed design phase and be in accordance with industry standards’  (Envams email 29/8). Given the Councillors’ express concerns relating to the nature of the fencing in this area, this is not a satisfactory response. BRE Industry Planning Guidance for development of large scale solar recommends that planning applications should contain full details and specifications of security fencing and lighting installations in order to allow accurate assessment of landscape, visual and ecological impacts. The lack of detail generally in a full application to build a huge electricity plant should be very concerning to the Committee. As a Councillor rightly said, there are still  a ‘lot of questions’.
Q. Will the perimeter fencing be sufficient to deter trespassing and theft on the site? A. No	The Applicant says the perimeter fence will be  2m high deer fencing. The NY Police raised concerns about the use of deer fencing as perimeter fencing for solar farms in the Pilmoor application and expressly say that 2.4m security fencing would be far more effective - see here .   Industry sites also suggest that security fencing should be used - see here.  Poor security would raise the risks of trespassers and theft, bringing criminal activity close to the village and increasing the risk of fire or explosion arising from damage to cooling plant and safety systems.There is also a concern about the potential insurance limitations.
Q. Will CCTV cameras and lights also contribute to the similarities with a ‘prison’ ? A. Yes	The Applicant has declined to say  how  many CCTV cameras there will be around the BESS and the sub-compound generally. It has confirmed that there will be ‘motion activated infrared lighting’  facing into the site but this may not satisfy the insurers - see comments made by NY Police above.
Q. Why does the fencing in the Fig 1.7a Viewpoint yr 1 (handed out by Planning Officer on site visit) apparently show the deer fencing being less than 2m high? A. This visual is based on a photograph, Viewpoint 1  Existing Righthand which is distorted by the use of a very wide angle lens, so everything looks further away than will appear to the naked eye	See Appendix 1 for photo showing how the Applicant’s rendering of the visual impact in Y1 is inaccurate. Fig 1.7a is also unlikely to be an accurate depiction of the final scheme due to the number and size of the plant that will be located there.  For example there will be an electricity substation - 50m x 27m x 6.3m high at points - in the near foreground (right), plus numerous other buildings. Further, in the PDAS site plan the 8 groups of battery storage containers in the BESS - each 16.7m x 3.7m x 3.3m in a row - are shown as being positioned in the middle of the sub compound area which is rising ground so more will be visible..
Q. Will the planned 3m hedges result in only ‘glimpsed views’ of the subcompound area as claimed by the Applicants? A. No	In addition to the distorted visuals,  Councillors should note 1) the entire area is about 4 acres on ground sloping west to east and north to south so there will be significant visuals from further away on roads and footpaths;  2)  the adjacent road is on  higher ground than  the site to the north so there will be visuals over the hedges at points 3) there will be a new, second access created  which increases the visibility 4) elements in the HV transformer substation are 6.3m high so will appear above the hedges, 5) hedges do not provide same level of cover year round, 6) for safety reasons, there cannot be planting close to the BESS and 7) the NYC Principal Architect’s expert opinion is that the planting will not be sufficient.
Q. What colour will the Battery containers be? A. Possibly white.	The Applicant has stated again that the battery containers will be painted a recessive colour to be agreed with the LPA and they are shown in the visuals as dark green. However, the industry standard colour now appears to be white for safety reasons  - to minimise the risk of over-heating which triggers lithium-ion battery  malfunction and thermal runaway.  The manufacturer’s datasheet provided for the battery containers  at the end of the the revised Noise Impact Assessment shows them as white.   The containers at the Battery storage unit recently constructed at Wormald Green  are white. White structures  would obviously  increase the adverse visual impact. But painting them dark green would increase the safety and environmental risks which are also of huge concern - see further below.
Q.  Could the battery storage and substation be moved further away from the road and the village - as Husthwaite Parish Council and many objectors have requested? A. Yes	Connection into the substation can be made from a significant distance .  Previous applications have indicated that up to 12km would be both technically and commercially viable.  The Applicant wants to locate the scheme right next door to the substation in order to minimise costs/maximise profits.
Q. Can the ‘temporary nature’ of a solar farm and the fact that sheep grazing may continue justify the long term use of BMV land for solar? A. No	The PPG on Renewables recognises that all solar developments are potentially temporary and that some minor co-agricultural use is possible but nevertheless confirms that solar should not be placed on BMV land.   Justification for using a significant amount of BMV land therefore has to go beyond the norm - the Applicant needs to show they could not put this scheme anywhere else within feasible connection range of the substation - and in particular that no lower grade land was available. The Applicant has not done this. The Pilmoor site, which is almost all lower grade land, lies under 4km from the substation which is a viable connection distance. The Applicant relies heavily on the Scruton decision from 2023 but more recent appeals such as Birchall Green and Murrells End have cast doubt on the decision, which obviously also predates the High Court decision in Lullington and the WMS of May 2024. The ‘temporary’ nature, if you can call 40 years temporary, and the  potential for sheep grazing should therefore both carry very minor weight in the planning balance..
Q. Is the landowner likely to graze significant numbers of sheep for the entire 40 years of this scheme? A. Very probably not	Even if the landowner does continue with the grazing of sheep (despite the huge annual income to be obtained from a solar farm and BESS of this size), the headcount and time periods are likely to be very small. The Applicant has recently (Envams email 29/8) cited the use of sheep at Castle Hill, Hull as an example of successful co-agricultural use. According to the developer, 51 sheep are being deployed at that site, some months of the year. And, that site was, in any event,  96% non BMV. A number of planning inspectors have recently noted, when refusing solar farm appeals, that while a small amount of co-agriculture through sheep grazing may be possible, this is a very minor use/return from BMV land. And although sheep are  often promised (e.g. at Boscar), they are rarely seen in practice at large commercial solar farms.  There are obvious risks including sheep damaging panels by climbing on them, sheep sustaining injury and being difficult to retrieve, sheep not keeping down all vegetation to the required levels which then requires pesticide use etc
Q. Can the Applicant guarantee that the quality of BMV soil will not be impacted by the construction and operation of the solar farm and Battery Storage Unit for 40 years? A. No	No-one knows yet what the impact of this will be. Natural England has confirmed, in a response to FOI request in September 2023, that “It is currently unclear as to what impact the solar panels may have on the soil properties such as carbon storage, structure, and biodiversity. Therefore, the overall impact (positive or negative) …on soil health is unknown.”. Expert evidence provided to the Welsh Government in an appeal in 2022 concluded that permanent damage to BMV  soil was the more likely outcome. The Applicant has provided no evidence in support of its assertion that the scheme is fully reversible because the quality of the BMV land will not be impaired after 40 years of construction and operation.
Q. Does the NFU support solar on large areas of BMV land? A. No.	As shown here, the current NFU policy supports co agriculture and solar on lower quality land - and on rooftops. It does not support solar on large areas of  BMV land.
Q. Are there serious risks associated with Lithium ion batteries of this size/density? A Yes the dangers are real - and increasing.	The House of Lords Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill, which had its second reading on 6/9/24, would make the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency a statutory consultee for installations of this type to allow, as its sponsor said,  ‘a greater understanding of the risk profile’. The objectives of the bill were  endorsed in the debate by the Government which is now looking to introduce primary and secondary legislation in this area. Grant of approval should not be considered without detailed analysis of  the ‘risk profile’ generated by putting one of the biggest battery storage units in the country just outside a village.  The Applicant’s safety plan has been strongly criticised by one of the country’s leading experts (see below) and cannot be relied on. Note that the Applicant also claims that the BESS has been ‘designed’ in consultation with NYFRS and yet the NYFRS make no mention of this in their response to the application which is generic  and gives no assurances whatsoever as to safety.
Q. Has the Applicant done all it can to ensure that the BESS can be operated safely? A. No.	As a leading expert Professor Melville has explained in two submissions (link to 2nd one, first one also available on Portal) , the Applicant has said it will adhere to the minimum standards set by the National Fire Chiefs Council, without regard to the fact that these have been proved to be inadequate for battery facilities of this size.  Further, they have not addressed the risk of toxic gases which will be generated by any lithium-ion battery fire or explosion.  He has also rejected as ‘wholly inadequate’ the volume of water the developer says will be required to extinguish any fire and therefore the size of the proposed tank to capture the highly toxic run-off which could pollute the surrounding land and groundwater. With the number of major incidents increasing ten-fold since 2016 (see insurance broker analysis here),  and given that the village primary school is less than a km away in the direction of the prevailing winds, the Committee should not consider granting approval in the absence of an independent expert review of a detailed design plan for the BESS.
Q. Should Woolpots be approved because Carlton solar farm at Drax was approved? A. No	The Drax application (2023/0128/EIA) was determined under the Selby Plan which in Policy SP17C, according to the Planning Officer, “positively encourages” renewable energy projects in the countryside “in pursuit of wider objectives”. The equivalent policy in the Hambleton Plan (RM6)  has a more restrictive approach with renewable energy projects to be approved only where adverse impacts are ‘acceptable’ and there is express reference in RM6 to the need to have regard to the Hambleton Landscape Character Assessments.  This fits with the main vision of the Hambleton Plan which is to ‘protect and enhance the countryside’ on which much of the region’s economy depends. Further,  the Drax site was flat and more capable of being screened.  The relevant Parish Council was neutral and there were fewer local objections.  While BMV land was included, the applicant did, at least, undertake an alternative site assessment. The decision also predates the May 2024 WMS which has refocused planning authorities and appeal inspectors on the need to avoid use BMV land for solar unless proved to be necessary for a particular scheme. The Woolpots application is comparable to that at Old Malton (23/00046/MFULE)  which the SPC refused in October 2023 on grounds, inter alia, the development would result in the unjustified loss of BMV land contrary to national and local policy (Ryedale Plan).  North Yorkshire Council is currently actively contesting the developer’s appeal on the same ground so a decision to approve Woolpots would be at odds with the Council’s stated position.
Q. Should Woolpots be approved because Pilmoor solar farm was approved? A. No.	Pilmoor was described by the applicant as close to a ‘perfect site’ because it was on flat, lower grade land away from any other solar farms.  The proposed Woolpots site is on undulating, predominantly BMV land adjacent to two existing solar installations and for these reasons it should be refused. It contravenes the NPPF on the use of high grade land and it contravenes the PPG on Renewables which says solar should be placed on flat land that is capable of being screened and cumulative impact should be avoided.
Q. Should an area with existing solar farms be given more so the adverse visual impacts are limited to that area? A. No	The national and local rules (including RM6)  expressly require planning authorities to consider cumulative impact as a negative aspect of such a development. This includes both visual and landscape impacts.  There will not only be co-visibility between Woolpots and the existing Peter Hill and Boscar solar farms, they will join up to create a continuous area of 370 acres, thus also magnifying the adverse visual impacts of the existing farms.
Q. Is an area with some pylons suitable for solar panels for that reason alone? A. No.	There is a recognition in the Hambleton Plan that some changes have not been beneficial and they should not be used to justify further inappropriate development.  Note that 1) existing substation was built in 1956; 2) pylons were imposed on this area against the wishes of the local authority; 3) the Hambleton Plan has since specifically recognised the rural quality of the landscape which is to be protected; 4) the there is a significant difference, in terms of visual impact, between a row of pylons and 150 acres of densely packed solar panels plus a 4 acre industrial plant including numerous large structures and the miles of fencing, cctv cameras etc that will surround it all. The Committee also needs to bear in mind the cumulative  impact with the existing solar farms and the longer distance visual impact on footpaths and cycle routes in the Howardian Hills National Landscape. Note that we requested that the site visit include more viewpoints to allow the Committee to appreciate the broader  setting of the site but were advised that this was not possible due to time constraints.  The assessment of the visual impact  should obviously not be based on one, rather unkempt,  field.
Q. Is a solar farm an ‘efficient’ use of these 90 acres of BMV land. A. No	Quite apart from the competing food production potential, it should also be noted that ground based solar is not nearly as efficient at generating energy as offshore or onshore wind turbines. On average solar panels have a 15-20 % efficiency rate.  Further these panels will  be 14% less efficient over 12 months at this latitude than in the SE of England (according to World  Bank - see map in Appendix A below). We all recognise the need for more renewable energy generation and the Parish Council regularly requests that solar panels be included when responding to  planning applications.  However, climate change is impacting on every aspect of our lives including food production and the planning rules seek to balance competing land use demands. They also recognise the importance of the countryside for the wellbeing of residents and visitors. It is clear that this scheme is not compliant with those rules.

APPENDIX ONE

Photograph taken from same point as in Applicant’s Viewpoint 1 Existing Lefthand.  If you compare them, you will see how much closer the far boundary is looking at the site with a naked eye.  This is why, when the fencing, battery containers etc are superimposed to show what  they will look like in Fig 1.7a Y1, they look smaller and further away  than they will be in reality.