First a nice quick case study near me in Leeds, not criticising the decision, im criticing the national policy that lead to it.
Battery storage facility plan rejected by planners
Plans to build a battery plant on greenbelt land in [Allerton bywater] West Yorkshire have been rejected.
Harmony Energy had wanted to install the battery energy storage system (BESS) on a plot near Allerton Bywater, in south east Leeds.
However, Leeds City Council rejected the scheme, saying it would “represent inappropriate development” in the Green Belt.
Hundreds of locals had objected to the plans on fire safety grounds [not a reason for refusal]
There has only ever been one battery storage fire, in 2020 near Liverpool. It is old technology and new national guidance involving consultation with the fire and rescue service mean it should normally not be a major issue ever again.
As an innapropriate use in the Green Belt the decision was inevitable. Renewables (but not battery storage) used to benefit from the pass of para 150. of the NPPF alongside Minerals and Engineering as ‘not innappropriate’ ‘provided they preserve [GB] openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. But Pickles follishly took these out because he asked CPRE for measures to tighten Green Belt controls (like asking Jesuits for ideas to bring out creative play in the under 7s).
Potential grid connection locations concentrate near town and cities, and hence Green Belt. So the restriction is out of date as we need to move towards zero carbon. Being out of date could be an ‘exceptional circumstance’ of course and perhaps LPAs should strongly consider this.
Adding them to appropriate uses would be a step too far, need to reduce where possible visual impact on openness of their location, as they can and must be huge.
Some renewables, low energy transport and storage facilities inevitably have some impact on openness however, so perhaps a new para 150a is needed.
The following operations are not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided a) they are necessary in the transition to zero carbon by 2050 and b) reasionable efforts are taken in terms of location, screening, design (including landscape design) to preserve the openness of the Green Belt, in addition to mitigating non Green Belt Harm.
a) Renewable Energy;
b) Utility scale battery storage;,
c) Electricity Grid and Green Hydrocarbon Grid Infrastructure,
and
c) Low energy and Zero Carbon transport and other infrastructure.
At the same time the para 150 exemption should be extended to ‘local transport infrastructure’ perverse as worded at moment. Perhaps because DCOs effectively ignore local plans (GB is a local plan not national law instrument), but as we move towards spatial planning for infrastruture needs to go?
I hope a sensibly worded reform such as this could even be supported by Green Belt campigners.
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions 