Appeal 6002620

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name], Renewable Connections Ltd against East Hertfordshire District Council. This application will be the subject of a separate Decision.

It became apparent at the outset of the hearing that there were inconsistencies in the drawings as presented. In particular, the plans omitted a 5m acoustic fence referred to in the Noise Impact Assessment. Following a brief adjournment, all parties present at the hearing agreed there would be no prejudice if I considered the 5m acoustic fence as the Council and interested parties had assessed the proposal on this basis. The appellant has subsequently corrected the inconsistencies with a new suite of plans, which I have accepted and had regard to.

It also transpired that despite being sent a link, the appellant had not reviewed the comments of interested parties submitted in accordance with the revised appeal timetable1. Nevertheless, the appellant was content to proceed with the hearing and addressed the matters raised by interested parties as they arose, including a prior review of the Noise Impact Assessment submitted by the Parish Council.

Although not a reason for refusal, the Council has alleged harm to the significance of designated heritage assets. I have therefore included this as a main issue. In so doing I have carefully considered my statutory duty in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the ‘Act’). 1 The appeal timetable was revised because the appellant did not initially submit the appendices to their appeal statement. Once this came to light, and upon receipt of these documents, I allowed a period for further comments in the interests of natural justice

The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • The effect on the significance of: 1) Crabbs Green Conservation Area and

Crabbs Green Farmhouse and Barn at Crabbs Green (both [name] listed buildings) through changes in their settings; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of nearby dwellings, with particular reference to noise.

The appeal site is located within the [name] and North Essex Clayland National Character Area (NCA). At a more local level it is within the [name] Area (LCA) as defined in the Landscape Character Assessment Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The site also borders the [name] Area defined by Uttlesford District Council (the adjoining Local Planning Authority). The SPD describes the LCA as an ancient, organic and intact landscape with key characteristics including its ruralness and tranquillity, medium scale arable fields, hedges with mature hedgerow trees, scattered woodland, villages with a strong vernacular, slightly sunken rural lanes, and pockets of pastoral fields around and within villages.

The appeal site is a small pastoral field enclosed by a mature hedge, albeit with some gaps. It sits between the very small hamlet of Crabbs Green and the village of [site address] . These settlements are linked by a network of meadows and paddocks and contain vernacular architecture, including listed buildings. Beyond the settlements are undulating arable fields. The appeal site is currently accessed via [site address] , a narrow and historic rural lane flanked by tall hedges and trees which impart an intimate, tranquil and strong rural character. The pastoral character of the appeal site is particularly relevant as this seems to be a relatively rare feature in a predominately arable landscape. Indeed, the SPD identifies grassland around settlements as a rare feature and indicates that there is an important remnant at Crabbs Green. The strategy for the LCA recognises the importance of grassland as a landscape feature by seeking the restoration of arable land to permanent pasture and meadow. Thus, the appeal site and its immediate surroundings is highly representative of the underlying key characteristic of the LCA.

That said, there is a very large substation that includes tall structures and other paraphernalia to the south of Crabbs Green. It connects to overhead power lines which stride across the countryside. In views from the north, the substation is quite well screened in the landscape given the presence of dense woodland. However, its presence is clearly apparent. The high voltage overhead lines are accurately described in the SPD as a major eyesore. This is particularly so in the open vistas across the arable fields. However, in localised views, particularly those along [site address] , neither the power line nor substation are constantly prominent, dipping in and out of view on account of the dense roadside vegetation. Overall, the SPD concludes that the LCA has a strong character and moderate condition.

Since the publication of the SPD in 2007, several significant renewable energy (RE) developments have been temporarily approved including a solar farm on the arable fields to the east of the appeal site and battery energy storage systems (BESS) to the north and south of [site address] and Crabbs Green. These are yet to be constructed but there is nothing of substance before me to suggest they will not be. Furthermore, to the south-east of the appeal site, and adjacent to the substation, a BESS has been constructed behind a landscaped bund. The substation is going to be upgraded but there is nothing before me demonstrating what this would involve.

RE development is therefore a feature of the wider arable landscape around [site address] and Crabbs Green and will likely become more so in time. Although temporary, the installations will be in situ for decades. However, the existing and approved RE development has not encroached (and will not encroach) into the footprint of the settlements or the distinctive pastureland between them. Ultimately, I share the view articulated in the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) that although the site and its context is not covered by any designation, it is of medium landscape sensitivity and value.

The appeal scheme would result in an industrial installation constructed in what is currently a small verdant paddock with an intrinsically rural character. Indeed, in addition to the batteries and supporting infrastructure, the proposal would also include a hardened highway access, CCTV cameras, hardstanding, gates, an acoustic barn and fencing. Although not far from the existing BESS and substation, the proposal would not read as an extension of either of them. Instead, it would be a standalone facility discordantly inserted into the intimate and small-scale pastoral landscape between Crabbs Green and [site address] . In so doing, the pastoral fields around the settlements, which are identified as a rare landscape feature in the SPD, would be eroded. The open gap between the two historic settlements would also be diminished and the strong rural character generally damaged. The presence of the development, alongside the audible hum it would generate, would diminish the sense of tranquillity.

The appeal scheme would not involve the entire paddock being built upon. Instead, it would be subdivided by a new hedge with a section retained as pasture and peripheral areas of meadow planted around the edge of the completed BESS. Moreover, the proposal would include a generous level of new landscaping advanced as mitigation, including trees and understorey planting. This would be managed through a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan. In this respect, the proposal would adhere to part of the strategy for the LCA (set out in the SPD) to promote hedgerow creation. Additional planting is also identified as an environmental opportunity for the NCA. Furthermore, the topography of the site would not alter drastically, and the proposal would have a contained impact on account of the perimeter hedgerow, which would be strengthened. Additionally, RE development is not alien to the landscape. However, the appeal scheme would also cumulatively contribute to a sense that the countryside around [site address] and Crabbs Green is being progressively eroded by RE development.

In taking a balanced view, the beneficial impact to hedgerow and tree cover cannot be divorced from the intrusive presence of the proposed installation. Indeed, the discordant siting of the proposal between [site address] and Crabbs Green cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. The magnitude of change would be high but only at a localised level. The proposal would therefore have a moderate adverse impact on the landscape character of the area in that it would conflict with local character, have an adverse effect on local features and diminish the sense of place.

Turning to visual impacts. As demonstrated by the screened zone of theoretical visibility in the LVIA, the proposal would be visually contained in wider views by the topography and existing landscaping. Indeed, from the east the appeal site reads as part of a belt of woodland given the tree cover to the south and the dense hedgerows along its eastern boundary. The visual impact would be localised.

That said, the appeal site is flanked by a public footpath along its southern and eastern boundaries. [site address] is also a quiet rural lane positioned only a short distance to the west of the appeal site. It is a no through road to traffic and part of what I understand to be a popular circular walking route used regularly by locals. Pedestrians using [site address] and the footpaths around the appeal site would likely be walking for recreation and moving slowly. Experiencing the pleasant and tranquil rural character, perhaps daily, would be an integral part of their motivation for walking the routes. As such, they would be sensitive receptors.

Even with the generous levels of landscaping proposed, including standard trees, the appeal scheme would be apparent from [site address] , especially around the emergency entrance, and the flanking footpaths (Viewpoints 3 and 4 in the LVIA). In these views, the proposal would appear as an unattractive and discordant insertion into the grassland between the village and hamlet.

In particular, the bulky and solid acoustic fencing would be as tall as the eaves of the acoustic barn and stretch for a considerable length resulting in a discordant box like appearance to the facility. The acoustic barn would also appear unusually large relative to the size of the paddock and thus out of place. This would be the case despite it being finished in muted colours because of its height and massing. It would be much larger than the buildings to the north used as a motor repair workshop. These are quite prominent in localised views and give an indication of how imposing the large acoustic barn would be, at 6m in height and 60m in length. Indeed, it would have the appearance of an industrial building out of keeping with the rural countryside setting. Accordingly, I share the view of set out by [name] on behalf of interested parties that the scheme would not be sympathetic to the agricultural vernacular. Because of these structures, the impacts of the appeal scheme would be quite different to the existing BESS to the southeast, which has a generally low profile, is partially screened by a bund and is set away from public footpaths.

There would be limited intervisibility between the appeal scheme and other existing RE development due to the distance and intervening planting. That said, in time the proposal is likely to be visible in the backdrop of the solar farm given the height of the acoustic barn. Regardless of whether there would be intervisibility between RE development or not, sequential views of RE development within the localised landscape would occur and this would result in harmful cumulative impacts when walking around the village. Overall, the magnitude of change would be high albeit at a localised level. Landscaping would soften the impact, but the scale, solidity and height of the proposal would result in the adverse visual effect enduring.

The intention is for the proposal to be temporary in that the permission would be time limited for 40 years with decommissioning to occur at the end of this period. This would involve removing the buildings, foundations, hard standing and other paraphernalia. Decommissioning the scheme would reduce the extent of harm because the impact would be time limited and ultimately disappear. The planting associated with the scheme could also be retained.

In considering the significance of the temporary nature of the nearby solar farm2, the Inspector was of the view that the 40-year impact would be a long time in a human lifespan but is not when considering the inter-generational need to address climate change. On this basis, and contrary to the findings of others3, the reversibility of the scheme was found to attract a good deal of weight as a mitigating factor. However, the need to address climate change does not diminish the notable impact the appeal scheme would have on the character and appearance of the area whilst in situ, particularly the very large building and bulky acoustic fencing. Consequently, the level of harm is only modestly reduced on account of the reversibility of the scheme almost half a century into the future.

Policy CC3 of the East Hertfordshire District Plan 2018 (DP) supports schemes for renewable energy generation without any locational qualification. A BESS does not generate renewable energy though. That said, Policy CC3 states that in considering renewable technologies, particular importance will be attached to maintaining the special character of the rural area.

Paragraph 161 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) supports low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. The Planning Practice Guide4 explains how electricity storage can contribute to the overarching aim of supporting a transition to net zero by 2025. As such, a BESS could be considered a ‘renewable technology’ for the purposes of applying Policy CC3. Thus, I share the view of the Council and appellant that such development is not resisted by the DP in the countryside as a matter of principle and therefore some impact on the countryside is to be expected. However, for the reasons given, the impacts would go beyond that inevitably associated with such development and harm the special character of the rural area due principally to its proposed siting and the scale of the acoustic barn and fencing.

In conclusion, the proposal would moderately harm the landscape character and visual amenity of the area. In so doing, the appeal scheme would fail to maintain the special countryside character of the rural area or conserve the character and distinctive features of the district’s landscape. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies CC3 and DES2 of the DP. These policies are broadly consistent with the Framework, which seeks to ensure new development recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Crabbs Green is a small historic hamlet of some antiquity. Indeed, its name may be associated with the family of [name], who lived in the area in around 1294. It is spatially separated from [site address] on account of intervening pastoral fields. Historic mapping demonstrates that this has been a long-standing relationship. Indeed, Crabbs Green would have been a deeply rural hamlet prior to the construction of the substation in the 1960s. The hamlet includes a handful of buildings loosely arranged around a central green, which is possibly a surviving 2 S62A/22/0006 3 The Inspector acknowledged that ‘little weight’ had been given to reversibility by the Secretary of State and another Inspector 4 Paragraph: 032 [name]: 5-[phone] remnant of medieval common land. As such, the CA is a repository of a medieval rural settlement pattern. It also has a scenic quality due to the juxtaposition of attractive vernacular buildings, landscaping and the green. The CA therefore has evidential, historic and aesthetic value, and this imparts significance.

The rural character of the CA is central to its value and special interest. Accordingly, the ability to experience it within a rural landscape setting is important to the way the significance of the CA is experienced and appreciated. Indeed, the wooded perimeter adds an intimacy and verdancy to the CA, as does the main approach along [site address] , which is narrow and well vegetated. Historic mapping in the Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) demonstrates that the hamlet has survived the 20th Century remarkably intact although the rural setting to the south has been substantially harmed by the substation and overhead wires. The boundary of the CA has also been rationalised in recent years. Nevertheless, the network of pastoral fields to the north, including the appeal site, remains and this provides a buffer with [site address] and a sense of rural isolation to the CA. The narrowing of the CA’s setting on account of the substation makes the rural setting to the north more important.

The proposed BESS would be outside the CA but close to it. The scheme would urbanise the rural approach to the CA and erode the spatial gap between it and [site address] . The southwestern corner of the appeal site would be further planted to largely screen the proposal in views from the CA. However, the development would still be apparent on the approach to the CA and the spatial impact on the local character would endure. Given the importance of the remaining rural setting of the CA to its north, the level of harm to the significance of the CA would be low-moderate on the ‘less than substantial’ spectrum when applying Paragraph 215 of the Framework. In this respect, I share the findings of the Council and interested parties and not those in the Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by the appellant. I have weighed the harm against the public benefits of the scheme in my planning balance. The effect on the significance of Crabb’s Green Farmhouse and Barn at Crabbs Green

Crabb’s Green Farmhouse was listed in 1985 and is an early modern timber framed dwelling arranged over two floors with the first floor in the roof void. The CAA speculates that elements of the building could be even older, perhaps dating to around 1500. The farmhouse may have replaced a moated predecessor. The building is a repository of historic building techniques and bygone lifestyles and much of its special interest derives from this. That said, it also has a rustic charm with a pleasant vista towards the property from the green. Like the CA, Crabb’s Green Farmhouse has evidential and aesthetic value which imparts significance.

To the rear of the farmhouse is the separately listed Barn at Crabb’s Green. This is a three-bay structure finished in the local vernacular of timber boarding. It is probably contemporary with the farmhouse and forms part of the historic farmstead.

The farmhouse and barn are intrinsically linked to the countryside setting because they are vernacular buildings born out of, and associated with, the surrounding rural landscape. Their significance is better revealed, understood and experienced within a rural setting. The appeal site contributes to this rural setting on account of being an open undeveloped paddock. There is also an historic association, as I understand the appeal site forms part of the historic landholding of [address].

The proposed development would be located a short distance to the north of the farmstead. It would be an industrial type of development of significant scale given the large acoustic barn, the acoustic fencing and the site coverage. The proposal would therefore erode the rural setting of the listed buildings. This impact would spatially and aurally occur even if the intervisibility were minimised through additional planting. The diminution of the rural setting would modestly harm the significance of the listed buildings on the ‘less than substantial’ spectrum. Again, this harm is weighed against the public benefits of the scheme within my planning balance as required by Policy HA1 of the DP and Framework Paragraph 215.

Within its statement, the Council has suggested that the occupants of the six properties nearest to the appeal site would be receptors adversely affected by noise from the proposed BESS. During the hearing, I heard evidence from three experts on this matter. All pointed me towards BS4142:2014+A1:2019 (the ‘BS’) as the most appropriate primary means of assessing the effect of the scheme despite having some limitations when it comes to considering low frequency noise.

In simple terms, a BS assessment requires a ‘specific sound level’ of the noise source to be identified. The assessor should then consider whether any correction penalty is required at the receptor location on account of tonality, intermittency and impulsivity. This provides a ‘rating level’ which can then be compared to the ‘background noise level’. The extent to which the rating level exceeds the background noise level provides an indication of the significance of the effect, which also needs to be considered alongside contextual matters such as the existing noise character of the area and the nature of the receptors.

The Council and [name] (‘RBA’ - the noise consultant representing interested parties) are broadly content to apply a specific ‘worst case’ sound level of 24dB to the proposal. This being the noise emitted from the BESS with the proposed mitigation in place. The noise level would be low, but it would also be tonal in character. Both the Council and RBA have expressed some concerns that the specific sound level is based on laboratory testing of the mitigation, rather than its actual performance, and therefore it may not be as good as expected. For example, there may be noise break out from weak points in the acoustic barn or through doors. Accordingly, RBA reasonably suggest the figure may be optimistic.

NJD (the appellant’s noise consultant) has not applied a tonal correction to the specific sound level because they consider the very low sound level (of 24dB) is unlikely to be perceptible above the residual acoustic environment. However, there is a contradiction, as they also state that the specific noise may have certain acoustic characteristics that would make it more noticeable than if such features were not present. The acoustic characteristic being the tonality.

To support this, RBA have undertaken a tonality assessment of the noise from the existing BESS using the reference method outlined in the BS5. This uses spot measurements which identified a ‘strong tonal component’. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers have also experienced this tonal noise when visiting local properties. Although no statutory nuisance has been declared, these points nevertheless indicates that the proposed BESS would have a similar noise 5 The Institute of [name] has included articles outlining problems with the ‘objective’ method as does the Association of [name] technical note. Thus, the reference method is preferred character and a correction would be reasonable as per the BS. On this basis, I share the view of both the Council and RBA that a correction penalty of +6dB should be added when applying guidance in the BS.

Furthermore, I also share the view of the Council and RBA that a correction should be added for intermittency. The correction penalty would be +3dB. This is because there are likely to be times when the plant cycles on, produces a noise and then stops. This would heighten the perception and effect of the noise. Accordingly, the rating level (the specific sound level plus the penalty corrections) should be 33dB.

The Council did not apply penalties when considering and approving other BESS in the area. However, it was explained at the hearing that the Council only seeks to apply a penalty where it could affect the outcome of the noise assessment. In other words, if the specific sound level would not exceed the background noise level significantly with a penalty correction, then there would be little point asking an applicant to redraft their noise assessment to include it. I agree with interested parties that to ensure consistency the Council should record the need for a penalty even if they do not apply it. Nevertheless, the Council’s pragmatic approach reasonably explains the discrepancy.

Within their submissions, NJD have sought to consider the low frequency tonal impact of the proposal with reference to NANR45 and NR20 noise curves. Reference to NANR45 is made in the BS as a secondary tool to investigate existing noise complaints. However, it is unreliable for use in predictive planning situations. Because of this, both RBA and the Council understandably suggest NJD’s approach should be afforded little weight, especial as the BS assessment is adequate in this instance as an indication of the scheme’s noise impacts. Moreover, noise curves are not appropriate for assessing tonal noise as they are not sufficiently ‘fine grained’. Reference has also been made by NJD to the guidance in BS82233 on noise standards within bedrooms, which the scheme would not exceed. But again, the tonal nature of the sound means BS82233 standards should not be relied upon.

All parties agree that the appeal site sits in a very quiet rural area and that background noise levels fall at nighttime. However, there is dispute as to where the background noise measurements should be taken from. The appellant has measured background noise levels close to the appeal site (Position ML1) as a proxy for the noise environment at the facades of the effected properties. In theory, this approach would be appropriate because the anticipated tonal noise is unlikely to diminish significantly over the relevant distances. The background noise level at ML1 was measured as 32dB (LA90) during the day and 25dB (LA90) at night. This broadly corresponds with the background noise levels the Council accepted when considering the [address] BESS – of around 33dB (day) and 26dB (night). Accordingly, the rating level would exceed the background level marginally during the day but by 7- 8dB at night. On this measure, the impact at night would be an adverse effect, but not a significant adverse effect if applying the rule of thumb that a significant effect is more likely to occur if the difference is more than 10dB.

However, RBA’s tonality assessment indicates that the background noise readings would be affected by the noise generated by the existing BESS. Although this is an approved development, and thus forms part of the context of the area, it has been granted for a temporary period. Therefore, I share the view of the Council’s Environmental Health Officer, as well as RBA, that including it as part of the existing noise environment would artificially inflate the background noise. Indeed, if it were included then the background noise measurements taken at the appeal site could result in less onerous noise restrictions for future development on account of ‘noise creep’ (where elevated background noise levels justify noisier development because the difference between them narrows).

To this end, the Council has advanced a proxy location for measuring background noise levels which is away from the existing BESS. I have not been directed to any guidance that supports this approach, but nor have I seen anything that states it is inappropriate. In the circumstances a proxy location seems reasonable.

The location identified by the Council (ML2), is about 1800m northeast of the appeal site. Background noise levels at this position were recorded as 26dB (LA90) during the day and 19dB (LA90) at night. This location might be quieter than at the residential receptors (minus existing noise from the BESS) because it is also away from the electrical substation, which is a permanent feature. However, it is unclear what effect the substation has in isolation. Ultimately, the measurements taken from ML2 are the most robust figures before me because the others referred to by the appellant can be discounted. Indeed, the other measurements were taken to consider the effects of a different BESS in a different location. The reading at LT1 is not representative because it is very close to the substation and the measurements taken at NMP1 and NMP2 would likely have been affected by the presence of the extant BESS. Therefore, in the absence of any other applicable measurement of background noise levels, I have used that taken at ML2.

The implication of the above is that the rating level would exceed the background noise level by around 7dB during the day and 14dB at night. The night-time exceedance would comfortably exceed the 10dB rule of thumb outlined above. As such, there is some margin of error in case the background noise level advocated by the Council is too low. Both the specific and rating level of the noise (24dB and 33dB) would be low, but the professional opinion of both RBA and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer is that the effect would likely result in changes in behaviour, such as disturbed sleep, because the tonal nature would be discrete and distinctive. During the hearing I was advised by interested parties that the existing BESS, which is further from the residential receptors than the appeal scheme would be, is having effects in this regard. I have no reason to doubt this.

Moreover, some of the affected properties are listed buildings which are likely to have single glazed windows and thinner walls. Substantive evidence is not before me to demonstrate that the fabric of these period properties can be relied upon to adequately attenuate the tonal noise impact. I have also already explained that the proposed mitigation has been described as ‘optimistic’ by the Council and RBA. The noise would also be artificial in nature and occur in a quiet rural area. A condition requiring the BESS to operate in accordance with a noise rating level that would not result in an adverse or significantly adverse effect would be unreasonable because the evidence does not indicate it could be adhered to.

The Council has approved a BESS at [address] with less mitigation than the appeal scheme before me. The implication being that the specific noise level would be higher, perhaps by as much as 15dB. As already mentioned, the Council also agreed to a higher background noise level being used in the BS4142 assessment. At the hearing, the Council sought to justify this by suggesting the context was different between the appeal site and the [address] proposal. Notwithstanding this, I have come to my own findings for the reasons given and based on the evidence before me. This includes the persuasive expert view of RBA. It is also worth noting that the Council has not been against BESS development in the locality, having approved three. Instead, it is the specific impacts of the appeal scheme in the location proposed that has resulted in the Council’s concerns.

Consequently, the proposal would result in ‘adverse’ and ‘significant adverse’ effects during the day and night when applying the Noice Policy Statement for England (NPSE), especially when considering the tonal nature of the noise and the very quiet rural context. Indeed, the noise would be highly discordant in a location characterised by natural sounds. The NPSE aims to avoid significant impacts. Paragraph 198 of the Framework sets out a similar policy requirement. The NPSE also seeks to protect quiet places at quiet times.

In conclusion, the proposal would have adverse and significant adverse noise impacts. This would harm the living conditions of the occupants of nearby properties in conflict with Policies CC3, EQ2 and DES4 of the DP. These polices seek to secure development that minimises the direct impacts of noise and avoid significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Paragraph 135(f) of the Framework outlines the need to promote health and well-being with high standards of amenity.

Various concerns have been raised by interested parties in respect of highway safety, the setting of other listed buildings and health and safety implications, including fire risk. However, given my conclusion it has not been necessary to address these matters further as the appeal has failed on the main issues.

Within its reason for refusal the Council has referred to Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework. However, there are relevant development management policies which I have referred to. These polices, which are the most important for determining the application, are not out of date as a collective basket being broadly consistent with the Framework. As such, Paragraph 11(d)(ii) is not engaged. Given my findings, Policy INT1 of DP does not indicate that permission should be approved.

For the reasons given, the proposal would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. An appeal should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The benefits of the scheme are important material considerations. The scheme would facilitate the significant storage of electricity and its subsequent release back into the grid during periods of higher demand. The proposal would therefore contribute towards a more efficient and resilient grid and reinforce energy security.

As already mentioned, the Framework supports infrastructure that would assist the transition to net zero. Indeed, for the reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, the Framework (in Paragraph 168) states that significant weight should be given to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation and a proposal’s contribution to a net zero future.

National Policy Statement (NPS) for [name]-1 recognises the key role that electricity storage has in meeting net zero aspirations and energy flexibility. The NPS only directly apply to [name] above 100MW, but it is material to my considerations. Other national guidance and publications add support to the proposal. Indeed, the [name] (2023) states that grid scale storage will enable electricity to be used more flexibly and assist decarbonisation. The proposal would also contribute towards the battery capacity target identified in the [name] 2030 Action Plan. Moreover, the appellant has referred to several documents from the National Infrastructure Commission relating to the infrastructure needed to support net zero. The Council has declared a climate emergency, and this has informed the draft aspiration in the emerging local plan to ‘grow our renewable energy sources’.

Furthermore, constructing the facility would provide a moderate boost to the economy through employment and investment with a more modest effect enduring into the operational phase on account of monitoring and maintenance activities. The scheme would also be able to achieve a moderate biodiversity net gain of 13.79% in biodiversity units and 42.79% in hedgerow units.

Against this, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the local landscape. Given the localised nature of this harm and the extent of mitigation, I have characterised the overall impact as ‘moderate’ adverse. In addition, there would be some low-moderate harm to the setting of the CA and modest harm to the significance of two listed buildings. The settings of these listed buildings would not be preserved, contrary to the expectations of the Act. The Framework explains that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Conservation in this context means sustaining, and thus not harming, an asset’s significance. The failure to conserve is therefore a matter of considerable importance. The proposal would also result in a significant adverse noise impact.

Ultimately, the benefits of the scheme would be of sufficient force to outweigh the harm to the significance of the heritage assets in isolation. However, the benefits would not outweigh the cumulative harm I have identified to both heritage and the landscape. Added to this there would also be harm from noise. The harm overall would outweigh the benefits of the scheme.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal has failed.

Extracts of noise conditions imposed on other nearby BESS schemes

Suite of revised drawings correcting inconsistencies between the plans - RNC004- RC-21, RC-15, RNC004- RC-14 and RNC004- RC-18

Council’s response to my list of questions on the suggested conditions

Appellant’s response to my list of questions on the suggested conditions and document 3 above