COUNCILLORS have deferred a decision on plans for a new battery energy storage system in Hammerwich.
The proposals, off Lions Den, had been recommended for approval.
But a meeting of Lichfield District Council’s planning committee saw lengthy debates fail to reach a decision.
The applicant’s agent said the scheme would help address national demand for energy storage facilities.
They said:
“There have been no objections from a range of statutory and non-statutory consultees related to the principal of development and technical matters.
“The development will increase much-needed battery storage capacity in the UK in a location able to connect via existing infrastructure. This location is away from residential properites and flood-risk areas. It is also within a viable distance of Burntwood sub-station to provide a secure grid connection and contribute to helping to meet climate change and emission reduction targets at international, national and local levels.”
But Cllr Leona Leung, Conservative member for Hammerwich with Wall, told the meeting there were concerns about the proposals for the site.
She said:
“I support the drive to renewable energy, but it must be done correctly and in the right place – and not in the green belt.
“Hammerwich, like other rural areas, has its own unique characteristics. Many choose to live, work or visit this area due to the fresh air, scenery and wildlife provided by the green belt.
“This land is not grey belt. It has no electricity, no water, no drainage – it is prime agricultural land. It is green belt as are the surrounding fields.
“Lichfield District Council has a green belt review underway. Is this land allowed to be deemed as grey belt in advance of the review being published? There are plenty of brownfield lands much closer to the sub-station for connection.
“This proposal requries 3.6km of connection cables to be laid. There are too many questions still to be answered about this.”
The decision to defer came after councillors said the volume of information – including details sent to them shortly before the session – left questions about some aspects of the proposals.
Cllr David Salter, Conservative member for Shenstone, said:
“There is a lot of new information that has come to the table. It is only fair to communities – because more of these applications will come in – that we fully understand and absorb all of this information before we make a decision.
“We’ve had emails this evening with new conditions and reports. We’ve had an explanation about how grey belt is determined. We’ve learned – which is not in the reports – about the electricity concerns with bollards at the main entrance.
“It needs clarification and to come back when everyone is clear on concerns that have been raised. “
Cllr Serena Mears, independent representative for Highfield ward, said:
“Incomplete information has been provided through the consultations and we don’t have the full picture yet.
“If we agree that this application is not deferred, we are setting a precedent in the area that it is acceptable for a development such as this to go ahead with incomplete information.
“It would be negligent of all councillors here if we didn’t defer this to allow us to dig into the detail further.”
Councillors eventually opted to defer a decision until a future meeting to allow for a site visit to take place along with a review of highways information, the construction management plan, residents’ objections and a proposed communications tower.
I agree that here must be far better “brown or grey field “sites more suitable for the location of this sort of facility? Not slap bang in the middle of any green filed sites.
It seems ironic that both Rugeley and Burton-upon-Trent power stations have been dismantled and turned into housing estates while an area of green belt land is now pinpointed for power storage!?
Would it not have been logical to have used some of these areas for this storage unit? Many of the facilities would already be in place. Such developments can only be classed as industrial and will inevitability devalue the area. A case once again where an obvious solution has been ignored in favour of developers.
This can only be described as Green Belt land, but I assume the landowner ( farmer?) is happy to sell due to the new inheritance tax. Surely there are more appropriate places for these facilities that will not destroy the countryside.
What happened to Brownfield first?
There is a worked out sand quarry, Anglesey Sand Pit, just over the road from the proposed site.
Drop it in there and we all go home happy!