Proposal for battery energy storage system on Grade 1 farmland blocked

‘Significant harm visual harm’ and potential threat to biodiversity and public safety outweigh claimed benefits of scheme

A scheme for a battery energy storage system (BESS) on farmland near Broadstairs has been refused planning permission.

Greenfield’s proposal for the 22MW plant at Sacketts Hill was blocked by Thanet District Council, which concluded that “the significant visual harm and failure to demonstrate that there would not be severe harm to biodiversity or public safety” outweighed any claimed benefits.

CPRE Kent had made a substantial objection to the proposal, which was within the Green Wedge (designed to prevent the merging of the Thanet towns) and on Grade 1 agricultural land.

Our submission stated: “CPRE Kent recognises the need to adapt the electricity transmission network as part of the move to more sustainable generation methods; this should be with schemes that minimise landscape impacts, secure real nature recovery opportunities and enjoy the support of local communities. Schemes that fail to meet these expectations should be refused as the need for energy does not justify damaging developments.”

Among the 13 objectors were Broadstairs and St Peter’s Town Council and The Broadstairs Society, while Kent Fire and Rescue Service highlighted the lack of a Fire Management Plan and Emergency Response Plan.

Greenfield had, among a range of structures, proposed 22 three-metre-high batteries placed in shipping containers, a four-metre-high substation and three BESS transformers.

Its application said: “BESS is an efficient way to store energy for domestic, commercial and infrastructure projects. It is the solution for providing a steady flow of electricity at all times.

“Renewable energies are currently unstable without the support of BESS in place. This proposal will have the capacity to store up to 22MW of clean, renewable energy generated by sources such as solar, and in turn, reinforce the local grid network.”

Greenfield claimed the development would be decommissioned after 40 years and the land returned to agricultural use.

However, council officers determined: “This proposal would result in significant harm to the Green Wedge from coalescence, encroachment and loss of openness.

“This area is limited in scale but plays a significant role in providing open space within the district and visual breaks in the built development.

“There would in addition be substantial harm to the distinct landscape qualities of the countryside through the introduction of built development in this stark and isolated location, failing to conserve the rural and unspoilt character of the Green Wedge.

“The proposal would provide very significant benefits, including the need for the BESS in terms of climate change, energy security, energy affordability, the availability of a grid connection, together with more limited socio-economic benefits and biodiversity net gain.

“The benefits of the development proposed are generic benefits of any battery storage development and do not propose any site-specific benefits other than BNG, such as infrastructure improvements, to justify a development in this particular location.

“Other connection points to the National Grid are present within the district; however, the applicant has not identified these connection points or outlined why these are not available.

“It is therefore considered that the need for the development to be located within the Green Wedge has not been fully established and the development is not essential to be located within the Green Wedge.

“The application has also failed to demonstrate that there would not be severe harm to biodiversity in the area, particularly breeding and wintering birds that may use the site, or how the public-safety risks of the development would be suitably managed for its lifetime.

“It is therefore considered that whilst great weight is given to the very special circumstances that have been identified through the provision of battery energy storage, the need for the development in this location has not been fully established.

“The lack of fully justifying the location, the significant harm visual harm and failure to demonstrate that there would not be severe harm to biodiversity or public safety is therefore considered to outweigh the benefits of the development.”