Setback for farmland battery storage plan

The proposed site for the battery storage site is at New House Farm in Bagnall

Residents may win their fight against proposals for a large battery storage facility on farmland after planning officers recommended the scheme be refused.

Nearly 150 people objected to the proposed 99MW battery energy storage system (BESS) at New House Farm, off Luzlow Lane in Bagnall in the Staffordshire Moorlands.

District Council planning officers recommended the application, submitted by Root Power, be refused on the grounds the project would be "inappropriate development", adding open fields would be replaced by industry.

Root Power said the development was justified by the "urgent need" for battery storage to support renewable energy.

The purpose of the BESS is to support the transition to renewable energy by allowing surplus electricity to be stored and released into the grid when needed.

It would include 24 battery clusters, 12 transformers, a substation and various other structures, and would be connected to the Cellarhead substation.

But planning officers had concerns over whether firefighters would have safe and convenient access to the site.

Residents objecting to the plan cited risks of fire, pollution and harm to wildlife.

A battery energy storage system, like this one in Ipswich, would contribute to renewable energy supplies

A resident who lives next to the proposed site said: "The toxic chemical smoke and fumes from a fire would directly affect my family. It would also impact on people using the common and driving through the area."

Another objector said the area was "a haven for wildlife", adding: "The views across to the Roaches are stunning – high fencing and bright lights would ruin this area."

Two letters of support were received, highlighting potential environmental and investment benefits.

However, officers concluded the harms outweighed the benefits, writing: "While it is concluded that the land is 'grey belt' it does not satisfy all the criteria to be deemed not inappropriate. Therefore, the development is harmful by definition.

"The development would, in addition, compromise openness by replacing open fields with a development of industrial character and appearance."

The application will be decided by the council's planning committee next week.

This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service which covers councils and other public service organisations.