Appeal 6004949

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction and operation of a micro energy storage project at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/1475, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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 drawing nos. 01 Location Plan [name], 02 Layout Plan [name] and 04 [name] [name].

Prior to the first use of the approved micro-energy storage system a scheme of landscaping shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of proposed tree and hedge planting around the outside edge of the approved fencing. All planting comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the development; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

The main issues are: • whether the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby residential properties, with particular regard to noise; • the effect of the development on highway safety, with particular regard to parking for maintenance vehicles; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to amount to very special circumstances.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt on a grass verge on the side of the A452, [site address] , between Kenilworth and [name]. There are a few sporadic dwellings around the site, including on [address], an open field behind, and sports pitches next to that. The proposal is for a micro energy storage project comprising four battery containers, used to store excess electricity until there is demand for it, when it would then be released back into the grid. The battery containers would be enclosed in a 2.4 metre high timber fence.

The Framework identifies the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy as being to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. This guidance is reiterated by Policy DS18 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011- 2029 (the LP) which defers to national planning policy when considering proposals within the Green Belt.

The Framework establishes that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions. The appeal proposal does not comply with any of the exceptions listed and, as such, it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflict with the Framework and with Policy DS18 of the LP.

Openness is an essential Green Belt characteristic with spatial and visual aspects. Spatially, the proposal would clearly result in additional built development where there is currently none. Consequently, the proposal would result in spatial loss of openness within the Green Belt.

Visually the proposal would result in a change from grassed verge to a fenced compound with battery boxes. It would be visible from the highway next to the site and also from the footway/cycle route from [address] to [site address] . The proposal would be utilitarian structures and high boundary fencing within an area which is rural, edge of town and open and where there are visual receptors. Harm would, therefore, be caused to the visual openness of the Green Belt.

However, the appeal site is next to an existing electrical substation which I saw is a green metal “box” which is neither enclosed in fencing nor landscaping. The existing substation has a visual effect on the character and appearance of the area resulting in an urban feature on the roadside verge. The area is verdant and open countryside within the Green Belt; however, it already has urban and utilitarian features.

Moreover, the appellant has proposed to enclose the battery boxes and fencing with landscaping. This would help to assimilate the development into its immediate surroundings which include trees and hedgerows. Landscaping of the development would be capable of being secured by an appropriately worded condition and there is sufficient space within the red edge of the application site to provide this. Subject to such a condition, which I find meets the relevant tests, the visual effect of the development would be limited and mitigated.

The provision of landscaping around the development would also ensure that it improves, and positively contributes to, the character and quality of the area through good layout and design. It would also be designed to minimise the effect on the natural environment in terms of landscape and visual effects and it would integrate landscaping into the design. For these reasons, I find no conflict with the design policies in the LP including, Policies BE1, NE4 and CC2.

For the above reasons, I find that the appeal proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Nevertheless, it would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the proposal would thus conflict with the Framework and with Policy DS18 of the LP.

The nearest residential property to the appeal site lies on the opposite side of [site address] . Other nearby properties are situated on and off [address] and are some distance from the proposal.

[name] accept that there is not a site-specific noise assessment submitted with the appeal the originally submitted report indicates that the noise levels that would be generated by the proposal would be less than 40dBA beyond 25 metres from the site. The property on the opposite side of [site address] is noted in the Council’s officer report as being further than that distance and I saw that it is also separated from the proposal by the well-trafficked A-road and is enclosed by a well-established hedge along the roadside. The noise assessment, albeit not specific for this site, demonstrates that resultant noise levels in relation to the nearest properties would be within an acceptable range and as such, no harmful effects should arise in this regard.

On this basis, I am satisfied that the living conditions of the occupiers of the nearby residential properties would not be unacceptably harmed, with particular regard to noise. I, therefore, find no conflict with Policy BE3 of the LP which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents.

The proposal would be constructed on a grass verge on the side of an A-road. No parking or turning arrangements for maintenance vehicles are proposed. The appellant asserts that the unit would require minimal maintenance, similar to the nearby electrical substation which also has no parking or turning facilities.

[name] note the concerns of the Highway Authority, there is no compelling evidence that parking or turning arrangements are required at the appeal site to enable ongoing maintenance. Un-restricted on-street parking is available nearby on [address], where I parked while undertaking my visit. The appeal site can be reached on foot from [address] via the existing footpath/cycle route. The distance from [address] would not prevent it being used for parking, even if it is beyond the distance that maintenance operatives should be required to carry equipment. The provision of alternative means to transport equipment from the parking space to the appeal site would be a matter for the appellant. This would provide appropriate parking nearby for regular maintenance.

There would be a requirement for traffic control during the installation of the proposal. However, this would be short-term and would be controlled through the highway consenting regime to ensure that there is no detriment to highway safety.

For the above reasons, the proposal would not cause harm to highway safety, with particular regard to parking for maintenance vehicles. It would, therefore, accord with Policy TR1 of the LP which requires all developments to provide safe, suitable, and attractive access routes for all users, and ensure that these are not detrimental to highway safety.

Micro energy facilities store excess renewable energy and discharge it to the grid when required. Such developments reduce the reliance on fossil fuel power whilst also providing storage for renewable energy generating systems, without needing to be directly linked to such developments. These small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to help address the effects of climate change and help to ensure a stable and reliable energy supply.

Well publicised national and local ambitions, as quoted by the appellant, aim to achieve net zero therefore identify and support the essential national need for these facilities. Micro energy systems also reduce carbon emissions and the appellant has quoted a predicted carbon saving of 160 tonnes per year. The Framework, and Policy CC2 of the LP, supports renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. The Framework further identifies that applicants should not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy, and that local planning authorities should give significant weight to the benefits associated with renewable and low carbon energy generation and the proposal’s contribution to a net zero future.

The Framework makes clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including any harm to its openness, and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The proposal would reduce the openness of the Green Belt spatially and visually, and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is harmful by definition. I therefore attach substantial weight to that harm as required by the Framework. However, bearing in mind that the visual harm I have identified relates only to the views of the site from the highway and footway/cycleway and this harm is capable of being mitigated by appropriate landscape, I give the visual harm moderate weight.

I have found no harm to highway safety or to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties from noise. [site address] and Blackdown Joint Parish Council have also raised concerns about the effect of the development on the Kenilworth to Leamington cycle route. For the above reasons, I have found no harm to highway safety and this would include the safety of cyclists using the highway and the section of cycleway near the site. Nevertheless, these matters are neutral in the planning balance.

Against the entirety of the harm, I am directed by the Framework that the benefits for renewable energy projects may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources. It is also clear that the country needs more electricity storage facilities in order to balance demand without resorting to fossil fuel generation. I, therefore, give significant weight to the proposal’s contribution as a renewable energy project to local and national net zero ambitions and to mitigating climate change.

Overall, although I have found that the appeal proposal conflicts with the development plan, I have also considered the benefits of the proposal in terms of the country’s energy supply. I find these other considerations to be cumulatively sufficient such that they clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and its openness and thus justify the proposal.

Whether or not the scheme falls to be considered as a utilities structure under relevant legislation falls outside the scope of this appeal. I also note that this matter has not been referred to in the reasons for refusal.

The Council have suggested conditions, which I have considered against the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. The standard time limit condition and a condition specifying the approved plans are necessary to provide certainty.

I have already found that a landscaping condition is required to ensure that the development blends, as much as is possible, into the surrounding landscape and to minimise the visual effect of the battery box and fencing.

However, I have not found it necessary to impose the conditions suggested by the Highway Authority as these matters are controlled through other legislation.

Whilst there would be some conflict with the development plan with respect to harm to the Green Belt, for the reasons given above, having regard to the Framework and the benefits cited, the material considerations indicate that permission should be granted. I therefore allow the appeal, subject to conditions.