Appeal 6001765

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit, the appeal site was in use as a temporary construction compound associated with works that did not appear to relate to the appeal proposal. Nonetheless, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

Two versions of the plans for the proposed micro energy storage project, comprising a battery box and enclosure (MESP), have been submitted with the appeal. One showing the enclosure to consist of timber inset panels with a wire mesh fence, and the other without the panels. Both parties have referred to the version incorporating timber panels and I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development plan and the Framework; and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the location of the appeal site within a Primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES).

The Framework states that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence, and that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the specified exceptions applies. Paragraph 160 of the Framework advises that, when located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development and the MESP does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in paragraph 154 of the Framework or Policy SS10 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2014 -2034 (2021) (LP).

While the proposed development would be contrary to Policy SS10 of the LP, this policy is not fully consistent with the Framework. As such, I give greater weight to paragraph 155 of the Framework which states that the development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where the requirements of a-d are satisfied. Although the Council considers the proposal would fail to meet these requirements, it has not provided substantive reasoning to support this position.

Paragraph 155 a. refers to instances when development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan. The Framework glossary defines grey belt as land comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes a), b), or d) in paragraph 143.

The appeal site is not previously developed land. However, its location on a roadside verge physically and visually separated from any built-up areas or towns, means that it does not strongly contribute to purpose a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. Similarly, the site does not form a gap site and would not assist with purpose b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. Nor does it contribute to purpose d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, given its modest scale outside any such context. On this basis, purposes a), b) and d) would not be undermined. Accordingly, the appeal site can be considered grey belt land under the Framework.

With regards to the remaining requirements of paragraph 155, it is also necessary to consider purpose c), which seeks to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and purpose e), which encourages the recycling of derelict and other land. It could be argued that there would be some conflict with purpose c), as the proposal would introduce built form where currently none exists, and the proposal may not assist with purpose e). However, taken together, the proposal would not fundamentally undermine them either, particularly when considering its modest scale and the remaining extent of the Green Belt as a whole.

There is no dispute between the main parties that small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The appellant has referred to Government publications1 supporting energy storage as a means of meeting energy needs. Planning Practice Guidance2 highlights that electricity storage can enable more flexible energy use and can assist in de-carbonising the energy system cost-effectively, which is consistent with Paragraphs 161 and 165 of the Framework in supporting the transition to net zero by 2050. The evidence before me indicates that the UK’s installed energy storage capacity is significantly below national targets. In this context, while only small in scale, the proposal would make a modest contribution to the storage of excess energy from the local 1 including National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1), [name]: Pathways to [name] (2025) and [name] 2030 Action Plan 2 Paragraph: 032 [name]: 5-[phone] electricity network. This would include the storage of surplus renewable energy generation until needed and could help maintain services during network outages. On the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed in line with paragraph 155 b.

Neither of the main parties contend that the site is sustainably located. Nevertheless, with reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework, while some limited vehicle movements would occur during construction, the proposal would be unlikely to generate significant traffic movements during operation. On this basis, paragraph 155 c. would not be conflicted.

The ‘[name] at paragraph 155 d. addressing major housing developments are not relevant.

On this basis, I conclude that the appeal proposal would not result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework. On this basis, it is not necessary to consider the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt.

The application site lies within a Primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES), identified in the LP on account of the area’s ecology, historical landscape and visual unity, and an area most likely to be negatively affected by change or development. The Derbyshire Landscape Character Assessment places the site within the [name] and [name] character area and the [name] and Valleys landscape type, characterised by small pastoral fields on undulating and rising ground. The Framework requires decision makers to protect and enhance valued landscapes and to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Within this context, the rural landscape around the appeal site has a degree of recognised scenic quality and is a valued landscape under paragraph 187(a) of the Framework.

[address] is a main route connecting Chesterfield with the Peak District National Park along which intermittent views of the surrounding countryside can be seen. Although there are some detracting features nearby, including a petrol station and the road itself, the appeal site is primarily experienced within the context of the broad grass verge in which it sits. The verge slopes gently towards an access road to the rear, alongside which runs a strip of trees, shrubs and an open ditch. A small substation, housed within a green cabinet, is located adjacent to the appeal site and appears as a discreet and isolated feature that does not materially detract from the otherwise open and verdant quality of the verge. Whilst limited in area, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the rural character of the locality and to the AMES designation.

Although comparable in height to the existing substation, the MESP would be noticeably greater in length and overall mass. The inclusion of wooden panels would reduce direct views of the battery units but would not materially lessen the utilitarian and industrial character of the structure. Its presence would be particularly eye-catching due to the contrasting materials and its combined visual relationship with the substation.

The appellant’s indicative landscape plans illustrates a low and narrow planting strip in a formal arrangement around three sides of the MESP. This would not reflect the more natural landscape features characteristic of the area. Furthermore, one side would remain open, and the limited extent of the planting would be insufficient to effectively screen or soften the proposed built form. In the absence of any alternative scheme, I cannot be certain that my concerns would be sufficiently mitigated or that a condition could be imposed that would be sufficiently precise or effective to assimilate the proposal into the landscape.

Consequently, the proposal would appear visually prominent and would contrast with the prevailing open character of the grass verge, being readily perceptible in views along [address]. While the proposed development is small in scale, the resulting harm would be significant given the high level of visibility of the site, and the fact that it would be seen by a substantial number of drivers travelling along this well-used route and would therefore fall short of the level of landscape protection sought for land within the AMES.

I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the location of the appeal site within the AMES. In this regard, it would conflict with Policies SS9 and SDC3 of the LP and Policies NE1 of the Holymoorside and Walton Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2016 -2033 (2017) which require development to not represent a physical intrusion into the landscape setting; to respect the character of the landscape through careful siting, scale, design and use of materials; to only be permitted where they would not cause significant harm to the character, quality, distinctiveness or sensitivity of the landscape; and to be informed by and be sympathetic to the AMES.

My attention has been drawn to other battery storage schemes3 in the Green Belt that have been approved by other Councils or allowed at appeal4. However, only limited details have been provided. In any case, I have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate Green Belt terms and I cannot be certain these other examples represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal, particularly in respect to the character and appearance of those areas. I have therefore determined the appeal on its own merits.

It is recognised that finding suitable locations for the MESP presents challenges due to specific site selection requirements. However, this does not justify or overcome the harm I have identified in relation to the second main issue.

Other than where set out above, I have not identified conflict with any other relevant parts of the development plan or national policy and guidance. However, the absence of harm or development plan conflict with respect to other relevant matters weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

Paragraph 168 of the Framework sets out that, when determining planning applications for all forms of renewable or low carbon energy and their associated infrastructure, significant weight should be given to the benefits associated with the proposal’s contribution to a net zero future. 3 Runneymede Brough Council ref: RU.23/1704, Tandridge District Council ref: TA/2024/848 and Tonbridge and Malling Brough Council ref: TM/24/01701/PA 4 Appeal ref: APP/V4630/W/24/3347424

It is accepted that there is an unmet need for energy storage and the proposal would contribute towards meeting this need. However, given the small scale of the proposal, its overall contribution would be modest and could save approximately 5,000 tonnes of carbon over its lifetime and provide power for around 200 homes for around four hours. The proposal could also make a modest contribution to reducing the need for reinforcement of the local electricity network as demand grows, thereby avoiding associated disruption and increased costs and contribute to improved energy security.

Nevertheless, even when taking into account the significant weight required by paragraph 168, the cumulative benefits of the proposal, being modest in scale, do not outweigh the more significant weight I attach to the identified harm to the character and appearance of the area, together with the associated policy conflicts. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that these benefits could be achieved in a way that does not cause the harm identified.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.