Agenda item

Considered

The report of the Assistant Director of Planning – Community Development Services requesting Members to determine a planning application for the installation of a battery storage facility at Land off Lunn Lane, Kellington.

The application was reported to this Committee due to the application being defined as a departure from the adopted Development Plan for which the Secretary of State must be consulted and it was intended to recommend approval.

A Member stated that despite reference to the address in the application, the site of the application was not in Kellington and was located in the Parish of Beal. He asked, therefore, whether the correct Parish Council and Divisional Councillor had been consulted. It was clarified that the correct consultations had been undertaken.

A Planning Officer presented the Committee report highlighting the proposal; the site location, viewpoints and description; the context to the application; planning guidance; and policy and planning considerations. The report also provided a conclusion and recommendation.

An update to the report had been published and outlined.

·        Updates to the NPPF made on 7 February 2025 did not alter the assessment and recommendation of the application

·        Details of a further letter of representation

A further update was provided at the meeting providing details of alterations to Condition 5 regarding the landscaping scheme.

Terry Richardson an objector to the application addressed the Committee highlighting the following.

·        Concerns regarding the motive for recommending approval of the proposal.

·        Previous plans for low environmental impact development in the village had been actively discouraged by the Council.

·        Use by the Council of the Local and National guidelines to suit their own purposes.

·        The disillusionment with the Council’s customer service and planning process.

Members discussed the application and the following issues were raised.

·        It was noted that the report stated that alternative non-green belt sites were available for the development and it was asked where these were located. In response it was stated that this was a typographical error in the report which should have stated that no alternative non-green belt sites were available.

·        In terms of the accumulation of similar developments in close proximity it was asked when the planning process would begin to take account of this factor. In response it was stated that this was dependent upon the applications having an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) where cumulative effects were a consideration. This particular application was not subject to an EIA taking account of the relevant regulations. Details of the criteria for an EIA were clarified.

·        It was asked whether the proposals were detrimental to the nearby St Edmunds Church, which was a designated heritage asset. In response it was stated that a Heritage Assessment had been carried out which had concluded that there would be no harm to any heritage assets through the proposed development. However, the Council’s Conservation Officer had identified some harm to the setting of the designated heritage asset through development within its wider agricultural setting. This harm was considered to be less than substantial harm in NPPF terms, which required the benefits of the proposal to be weighed against it. In the case of this application it was considered that the benefits outweighed the less than substantial harm identified.

·        It was clarified that the grid connection at Ferrybridge was less than 5.5km to the proposed development site.

·        It was stated that the potential for a community fund being developed in the future had been considered, and it was asked why this factor could not be conditioned. In response it was advised that this issue was outside of the planning process and, therefore, was not a material planning consideration. Any arrangement of this manner would need to be determined by the developer and the local community away from the planning process.

·        Clarification was provided as to the use of the commercial buildings to the north of the application site and there was no usage that was considered to be a bio-risk.

·        It was asked whether there was the potential for the batteries being stored at the facility to leak, or to catch fire, which, if so, would the proposal require an EIA. It was reiterated that the size of the proposed facility, when compared to other similar facilities, negated the need for an EIA as it was not deemed to be significant.

·        It was stated that the application was described as diversification of farm land, however, the site identified was not being used for farming purposes, appeared to be owned by the applicant and, therefore, should not be considered as diversification. Clarification was provided that the developer did not own the land and any farm diversification had been given limited weight in the planning balance as it was unquantified.

·        Details of the monitoring of the site were provided with 24 hour, 7 days per week CCTV in operation and in-person visits to the site on a regular basis.

·        It was stated that the details of the biodiversity net gain would be determined through the S106 legal agreement.

·        No other appropriate sites had been identified for this development within the required distance from the application site.

·        Details of the decommissioning of the site when the facility was no longer required for battery storage were secured by way of condition. This would require the removal of the battery storage facility and for the land to be returned to its original state.

·        It was emphasised that the Government were promoting this type of facility to steer away from gas powered energy and, despite the detrimental effects of the proposal, the positive provisions outweighed those.

·        It was noted that the grid connection was not included within this application. This would be applied for at a later date and would be partly within Wakefield District Council’s area; or, if delivered by the local Distribution Network Operator (DNO) could be carried out using their permitted development rights.

Members debated the application and the following issues were highlighted:-

·        The positives of the proposal far outweighed the negatives.

·        There was a need for a community benefit to be provided in relation to the proposal.

·        The proposals for HGV access to the site involved negotiating a very dangerous corner and further consideration was required in relation to this route.

·        The proposal was inappropriate for the site and the potential for leaking batteries required further consideration.

·        There were no planning reasons to refuse the application.

·        It was questioned why such a facility needed to be located in a rural area and create a potential fire risk.

·        The Council’s commitment to carbon neutrality and the various adopted policies supporting that required such facilities to be provided.

·        Other sites in the area with former industrial usage would have been better used for such a facility than the haulage and distribution centres they had become.

Resolved

That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions listed in Section 12 of this report with condition 5 being updated to require a landscape scheme to be submitted to provide bolstered boundary screening, the completion of a S106 legal agreement in accordance with the details listed in Table 1 in Section 12 of the report, and the outcome of the referral to the Secretary of State under The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021, as per paragraph 4 (b) of the report - the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and consists of or includes development which, by reason of its scale or nature or location, would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

The voting on this resolution was as follows.

8 for

6 against

Councillor McCartney left the meeting at this point.