Appeal 6002036

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction and operation of a micro energy storage project at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0401/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the streetscene.

The proposal is for a micro energy storage facility, also called a [name] (BESS), with a total built footprint of approximately 24m 2. It would comprise 2.2m high battery units inside a 2.4m high compound of wire mesh with wooden inset panel fencing. Soft landscaping would run alongside the front and side. The BESS would import electricity from the local network when renewable energy sources are generating high amounts or demand is low, and export it back to the grid during periods of higher demand. This would help to address grid resilience, and reduce wastage and reliance on fossil fuels.

These benefits would be relatively modest given its size. However, the Framework paragraph 168 recognises that small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and identifies that significant weight should be given to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation and the proposal’s contribution to a net zero future. Paragraph 161 further states that the planning system should support the transition to net zero by 2050, and support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. The BESS therefore gains policy support in principle.

The appeal site comprises part of a long stretch of open greenspace verge, which includes intentional planting and creates a pleasant and relatively verdant character alongside the busy [address]. It is set back from the road, and separated from the substation to its rear by a narrow belt of trees. Pedestrian and cycle paths/access driveways pass through the verge and trees to the substation and sporting facilities also to the rear. Residential properties line the opposite side of [address]. The appeal site is unallocated land. The Middlesborough Core Strategy (CS) allocates the area behind as a ‘Green Wedge’, but the tree belt would predominantly screen views of the BESS from that area.

In the context of this urban environment streetscene, including the glimpsed views of the substation, and the sports facilities and associated fencing and lighting columns, I find the appeal proposal would not be particularly untoward. Its height would be dwarfed by the height of the trees behind and alongside, and its landscaping would also soften its impact and help blend it into this background vegetation. The use of wooden fencing would create a less stark and utilitarian impact than typical roadside infrastructure cabinets, notwithstanding its proposed height, and the fence colour would be controlled by a condition. The type, maintenance, and upkeep of the associated landscaping would also be controlled by a condition. The impact of the BESS would be more apparent during seasonal leaf drop, but not unduly so in comparison to the other existing structures.

Various street furniture items are already present along this verge, including cabinets, such that the BESS would not appear entirely out of place. Paragraph 3.31 of the Middlesbrough Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) does advise that over cluttering from street furniture should be avoided at all costs, as it is confusing and misleading. However, the BESS would be set sufficiently distant from both these existing features and the footway, so as to not contribute to unnecessary clutter. It would have a negligible effect on the openness of the greenspace extent. Pedestrian movement would also not be affected, and the dominance of the taller tree belt behind would retain both physical and visual continuity, in compliance with the SPD paragraph 3.12.

I am aware that other appeals for very similar BESS schemes have been both allowed and dismissed by other Inspectors, but the specific site context for each of these will be different. I have based my consideration on the context before me.

Overall, the proposal would be modest in scale in comparison to the size of the greenspace around it, and the wider urban environment within which it would sit. It would not erode the predominance of the verdant verge, nor create unacceptable street clutter. Its design would be necessarily utilitarian to an extent, but the fencing and planting suggests that it would be well-designed. I therefore find that no harm would arise, and the BESS would comply with the [name] DC1 and CS5. Together and amongst other matters, these require developments to have a high quality of design, including their visual appearance and layout, and their relationship and contribution to the character and appearance of their immediate and wider context in terms of scale, design, and materials.

The Framework paragraph 168 identifies that the appellant is not required to demonstrate the need for renewable energy projects. The requirement for the type of BESS proposed, for which its intrinsic design is small-scale in order to address the need in urban areas, is that it needs to be within 50m of a secondary substation in order to be financially and electrically viable. Nonetheless, I have determined that the proposal would not result in harm, such that in this instance I have no need to consider site selection factors in any detail.

The Battery Noise Assessment1 calculated that the BESS would generate a maximum of 53.4dB at a distance of 1.0m, reducing to 35.4dB at a distance of 25m at first floor window level. The properties on the opposite side of [address] lie approximately 55m away, which the Council’s Environmental Health team identified would equate to an external noise level of 22dB from the BESS. As this would be below the background noise levels throughout the day and night, no objection was raised. A condition could restrict noise to these acceptable levels. Despite residents’ objections and concern regarding noise, I therefore see no reason to conclude differently. Although the BESS noise would be slightly higher for pedestrians and cyclists on the appeal side of [address], this would be a transient experience, and again set against the backdrop of noise from the busy road. I find no harm from noise overall.

Residents raised concerns regarding highway safety, but the BESS would be set back some distance from the highway, and adjacent to existing access driveways. The Highway Authority raised no objection, and I similarly see no reason why there would be any highway safety impacts during its construction or operation.

I also note the resident objections regarding fire risk and associated health and safety concerns. This includes that the perception of its danger would impact on sports facility visitors and passers-by. Nonetheless, the Council raised no objection in this regard. Risk minimisation measures already identified include 24 hour monitoring of various systems, with automatic shut-down if necessary. It is also standard practice for a condition to be applied to these types of renewable energy facilities, which would require the Council’s approval of a Battery Safety Management Plan prior to the installation of the BESS equipment. This would consider further details and requirements, including fire-fighting measures, for which vehicle access appears straightforward. The proposal would also need to comply with other health and safety legislative regimes. Overall, there is no objective evidence before me to indicate a specific safety risk.

Based on the Council’s suggestions and matters identified above, I have imposed conditions which reflect paragraph 56 of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. The appellant has agreed to these. The statutory condition (1) will limit the lifespan of the planning permission, and specifying the approved plans will provide clarity for the terms of the permission (2).

The Council suggested a condition for the development to be carried out in complete accordance with the external finishing materials detailed in the approved plans, or in accordance with further details to be approved. However, the plans do not precisely specify the fence colour, nor provide specific details of the proposed landscaping. I have therefore amended this condition to require further agreement of finishing materials (3), and added a new condition to agree landscaping (4). This will ensure control over the impact on the character and appearance of the area.

A Battery Safety Management Plan (5) is necessary for the safety of nearby residents and highway users, to ensure that the risks and consequences of any fire event are minimised and controlled. However, I find this only necessary prior to the installation of the BESS equipment, rather than the Council’s suggestion of being prior to development above ground level. 1 403.065704.00001 Rev 3, SLR Consulting Ltd, 11 November 2024

The Council also suggested a condition for the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted Battery Noise Assessment, including that any deviations from its recommendations shall be submitted to the Council for approval, and for any mitigation works to then be retained. However, that Assessment only assesses the potential noise which would be generated, and makes no recommendations or mitigation measures. I have therefore found it necessary to amend this condition, to instead simply reference that the noise levels identified in the Assessment should not be exceeded when measured at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive premises (5). These levels are in any case expected to be lower than the background noise level, but nonetheless, on the evidence before me I find it necessary to include this condition in order to preserve future amenity for local residents.

The Officer Report states that as the proposal would involve the siting of a concrete base over existing greenspace, a condition would be added to any planning approval to ensure that this would comprise a permeable surface to allow sufficient water run-off and adequate drainage capacity. However, no condition of this type was then suggested by the Council at the appeal stage, and the BESS would only have a small footprint. There would also be new landscaping outside of the non-permeable area. I therefore find that the proposal would only result in a very localised and minor impact from increased runoff. With nothing before me to suggest a lack of capacity in the large area of surrounding greenspace to receive and hold this runoff prior to deeper infiltration, I find the imposition of such a condition would be unnecessary and unreasonable.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the development accords with the development plan taken as a whole, and therefore the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Location Plan, Plan 1 [name], Plan 2 [name] - 3D Image, Plan 3 [name], Plan 4 2.4m [name] Elevations, Plan 5 Indicative Landscape Plan, Plan 7 [name]

Notwithstanding condition 2, no development above ground level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted, including their colour finish, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Notwithstanding condition 2, no development above ground level shall take place until details of soft landscape works and implementation programme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include planting plans and written specifications of species and plant sizes, and maintenance. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and implementation programme. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting or establishment of any tree, or shrub or plant, that tree, shrub, or plant or any replacement is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies or becomes seriously damaged or defective, another tree or shrub, or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted, shall be planted at the same place.

Prior to the installation of any battery energy storage equipment, a Battery Safety Management Plan (BSMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The BSMP shall detail the measures to be deployed to minimise the risks of, and address the consequences of, any thermal runaway event or other fire event. The development shall be carried out, operated, and maintained in accordance with the approved BSMP.

Once in operation, the level of noise emissions from the development hereby permitted when measured at the boundary of the nearest noise sensitive premises shall not exceed the noise levels identified in the submitted Battery Noise Assessment (project reference 403.065704.00001 Rev 3, SLR Consulting Ltd, 11 November 2024). **END OF SCHEDULE**