Is being live streamed on the lead city council YouTube channel so the public can observe the meeting without needing to be present north and east plans panel deals with applications from from the north east and the east of the city the aim of the panel is to hear all the
Revent information from applicants members of public and the council officers to help members of the panel to make decisions could I now invite members and officers to introduce thems and mute your microphone once you have introduced yourself so I’ll start from my left Danielle hi Daniel stro planning officer
In the minerals energy and waste team good afternoon my name is Louise White I’m the team leader um for minerals and waste and energy planning afternoon Andrew Fosbury highways development control officer for the East good afternoon uh councelor David J from kinber and SRO Ward good afternoon everybody my name is
Ray Jones I’m the council HTH uh good afternoon councelor Jules hesslewood representing weatwood Ward H good afternoon everyone I’m councelor Michael Miller represent kiix and methy Ward good afternoon I’m councelor Jim McKenna representing the Army W good afternoon I’m Daniel inworth part of the the plans panel team good afternoon Council Lynn Bley
Representing all Woodley Ward good afternoon councelor bar Anderson Adan Warf Deale Ward good afternoon I’m Debbie alom and I’m from Governor services Clark to the panel good afternoon my name is Amy Davis and I’m the legal officer for the panel today good afternoon my name is David Newbury I’m the lead planning officer
For the plans panel thank you uh can we now move on to item one can I ask Debbie to if she can take us through item one to five please thank you chair under agenda item one there are no appeals against the refusal of inspection of documents agenda item two there’s no exempt
Information agenda item three there are no late items under agenda item four could I ask members to declare any interests I’ll take silences there are none under agenda item five we have apologies from councilor sharp and Stevenson and councelor Bley is in attendance for councilor Stevenson thank you
Chair right before we move on to the uh today’s uh meeting can I ask the legal services if they can uh uh present the case before we move on please thank you chair before we start today’s meeting as members know as a result of the local and Regional
Elections being called for the 2nd of May currently we are in the pre-election period of height and sensitivity the chair has asked me to advise members that the purpose of the pre-election period is not to prevent the C Council carrying out its normal business but it is to prevent the business conducted by
The council being used or having the potential be to be perceived as being used to secure any electoral Advantage as such please treat this as a normal plans panel meeting but be mind full of debate that amounts to or could reasonably be perceived to amount to election heing thank you very
Much thank you uh can I also uh remind members uh to thank councelor McKenna since this his last meeting before he he retires uh all the work that he has done not only in this plan panel but also uh many plan panels previously in this city
So thank you uh Jim on behalf of this particular prom plan panel so move on to the item six which will be presented by Danielle so you want to take the lead oh sorry C McKenna sorry about this can now move on to item six minutes of the
Previous meeting held on the 28th of February 224 do members accept these minutes to as a correct record yeah thanks for moving councelor Jen jenin and councelor um Anderson for seconding and any Matters from arising from the minutes no in that case shall we move on to item seven then thanks
Daniel thank you chair this planning application is for a battery energy storage system and Associated infrastructure located on land to the north of alaton Bywater and to the west of bow Road the application is referred to the plans panel at the request of kipa and methley members Council Lewis and councilor
Harland so this shows the application site outlined here in red um it covers an area of almost 2 hectares and is within the green belt um is positioned 325 M north of Alon Bywater with leadstone 1 kilm to the East and kipa is 1.5 km to the north access to the site
Is from the a656 barnesdale road close to the property known as low Lodge and an existing electricity substation known as leadstone substation um low Lodge along with it gate pirs wall is grade two listed um the other listed property within the vicinity is the grade two listed Barn at
Home Farm which is 500 meters to the north um and the grade one list listed ledston Hall and it’s registered parks and Gardens allocated 1 keter to the Northeast so should be noted that the applicant received planning permission from City plans panel in 2021 for a
Solar Park which covers an area of 88 hectares of land so shown here in red is the solar Park application area uh the proposed development lies within the very Southeastern corner of the solar Park and when share infrastructure that’s associated with it so whilst the solar Park represented inappropriate development within the
Green belt and was considered harmful to the openness of the green belt the solar Park renewable energy benefits when that very special Circ cumstances existed to clearly outweigh the harm to the green belt and all other harm so this image here um shows the land where the application site is
Located um as shown on the right hand side you can see Barnell Road and there’s also the property uh low Lodge and the leadstone substation which are both located close to the roadside the site is open agricultural land bounded to the South by a row of electricity pylons which are in the sun
Section of the field as shown here so this shows um the proposed site entrance using the existing field access Off barnar Road between the gate posts of low LOD um this is also the approved access for the solar Park which is to be UPG graded so again this is showing the um
Access into the the field where the application site is located um you can see on the left hand side there’s the um hedge around the existing substation this shows a view across the application site um and on the left is the Hedge which is around the property
Low Lodge um and you can see that the well the application site is located next to this row of pylons you can see here so this shows the proposed site plan the proposed development is for a 40 megawatt battery enery storage system and planning permission is sought for a
Duration of 40 years to provide some background battery energy storage systems store energy which can be released as electricity into the grid when it is needed most electricity storage can be used in connection with newable generation such as solar to help provide a more constant supply of electricity
Into the grid um as shown on the plan here the development includes a battery storage compound uh which is on the very uh left hand side there’s a substation compound which is shown in Gray here and there will be a water containment area which is shown in in green um as
Well as the access track there’ll also be cabling to connect the proposal to the leadstone substation which is by barnar road so this shows the indicative elevations of The Proposal showing the proposed batteries um as well as the proposed substation so there are 32 batteries and 16 inverters proposed um as shown here
They are to be housed in containers which have a simple form and will be aligned into rows containers are 2.4 M by 6 M will have a maximum height of 4.5 M accounting for any roof mounted cooling units this shows the proposed substation um this in includes electrical equipment of an outdoor
Switch gear and Transformer there will also be a substation Control building which has a pitched roof as well as two uh water tanks um it should be noted that this is shown entirely as has already been approved under the solar Park application the applicant has agreed to a
Landscaping scheme which includes to the north of the site the planting of 81 trees hedro and scrub planting to the west and south of the site will be a hedro managed at a height of six meters The Proposal also includes security fencing pole mounted CCTV and but no lighting is
Proposed so here are um visualizations of the development um shown from barnar Road and the lower image shows the site uh once the proposed planting has reached full maturity this shows the approved layout of the solar Park um application um as you can see on this plan the very bottom of the
Screen should try and hide this so if you can see my because at the very bottom of the screen here um you can see the substation which has already been approved um but it also forms part of this application and to the left of that will be the proposed uh battery
Units the application has received objections from ward council Lewis and ward council Harland and grounds that the proposal would be harmful to the purpose of the green belt and that very special circumstances have not been met there is also an objection from the local MP great and little Preston
Council and kipac P and kipac Parish Council there is clear objection to the application from local residents with 909 objections received in total this includes a further two new obors since last week the main concerns raised relate to harm to the green belt and fire safety with regards to the green belt according
To the mppf The Proposal is in appropriate within the green belt and it would lead to the encroachment of Countryside and loss of openness the application therefore requires very special circumstances to exist to outweigh the harm um to the green belt and all of the harm the case for very
Special circumstances put forwards by the applicant includes an alternative site assessment which demonstrates that present there are no sites out side of the green belt and leads which can accommodate this proposal the site also maximizes the benefits of the Solar Development through collocation and sharing infrastructure there will also be a
Biodiversity net gain of 76% in habitat units and 171% in hedro units there are environmental benefits associated with energy storage which are widely recognized the National Grid state that battery storage Technologies are essential to speeding up the replacement of fossil fuel FS with renewable energy battery storage has also given
Support in planning planning practice guidance um the benefits of The Proposal therefore carry significant weight with regards to fire safety as many objetives are pointed out in the UK there was a fire incident at a battery storage facility in Liverpool in 2020 last August planning practice guidance was updated advising local
Planning authorities to consult their local fire service and consider guidance produced by the National Fire Chiefs Council throughout the application process there’s been consultation with West Yorkshire fire and rescue service should be noted that there’s no objection from the local fire service A Fire Safety Management plan has been
Submitted and has been updated following the input of the fire service the application site also incorporates a water containment area as you can see on the plan here um and as part of the Safety Management plan to ensure that in the event of the potential fire no contaminated fire water runoff would be
Released into the environment should be highlighted that as has been stated at appeal by a planning inspector planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively there are other controls which regulate the safe operation of such insulations and not the planning system a condition is therefore recommended um for a battery
Safety Management plan to be submitted prior to First operation and for engagement with the local fire service to continue throughout the lifetime of the development regarding landscape and visual impact there will be some harm to local character as a development is Industrial in nature there may be some
Public views available through gaps and existing vegetation however the harm will not be substantial on delivery of the proposed Landscaping scheme the proposed planting is is considered to adequately screen the development through the significant number of trees to the north and a 6 M High hedge road to the
South in terms of noise impact a noise assessment has been submitted which has been accepted by our Environmental Health Services team a condition is recommended to confirm that post completion noise levels do not exceed those predicted with results results to be submitted to the planning authority to demonstrate compliance regarding heritage the
Conservation team considered the proposal to be acceptable subject to the same mitigation measures being implemented as the approved Sol Park this includes the proposed Landscaping scheme and a condition is recommended for design details to be submitted for the proposed buildings on site and the access road details in relation to highways aside
From the construction period the proposals would generate minimal traffic other than occasional maintenance vehicle the highways team consider that the temporary construction traffic would not be severe in terms of the safe and efficient operation of the public Highway the same highways conditions are recommended this application as the solar Park
Approval uh in terms of ecology uh the site comprises grassland with no habitats of principal importance on site and as mentioned there’ll be a sub substantial biodiversity net gain as a result of the proposals conditions are recommended from the nature team in relation to Environmental Management plans and monitoring reports to be
Submitted it should also be noted that the proposed batteries are located within flood zone one and flood risk management team of no objection to conclude whilst the proposed development is considered inappropriate in the green belt and days to decide to call in the application we have received late
Comments um which includes from the council’s climate change and energy team um which I’ll read out they’ they’ve stated Reliance on Renewables dependent on weather conditions and daylight hours brings about energy Supply unpredictability battery storage systems are a counter measure storing Surplus energy and supplying it during Peak
Demand a shift away from fossil fuels will result in an unprecedented Demand on the grid this also has the potential to serve it as an alternative measure by supporting distributed networks thereby not solely relying on the decarbonation carbonization of the grid to be Net Zero carbon therefore these systems have
Multiple advantages in making our future Energy Systems resilient and are critically advantageous in the race towards accomplishing Net Zero carbon therefore there is General support for these of applications subject to National guidance being followed and other issues being assessed on balance the other late comment is from
The climate energy and green spaces team um and they wish to confirm that they would be supportive of battery energy storage applications um as energy storage is a key part of the journey to decarbonization um and this is supported within a number of key National documents and they’ve me mention the
Following three documents um there’s the climate change committee March 2023 report delivering a reliable decarbonized power system the National Grid Beyond 2030 report and the government’s British energy security strategy April 2020 report thank you chair thank you Daniel uh could I now invite councilor James Lewis and Alison
Davis to table uh to address panel on the objection to the application yeah when you’re ready uh you go four minutes between both of you thank you hi my name is Alison Davis and I’m here on behalf of the save our Villages all by water kiix and ledston campaign group
Of which there’s almost a thousand members and I’m councelor James Lewis I’m Council for kiix and methley Ward which covers Allon Bywater kiix and leadstone which surround in settlements to l site our campaign group understands the importance of renewable energy however the location of the proposed B poses significant and devastating impacts to
Our village that can’t be ignored please consider the following when making a decision on this application number one the non-compliance with the nfcc regulations battery units should be 6 meters apart they are proposed at three number two there should be at least two access roads there’s one single track
Which is prone to frequent heavily flooding number two collocation within a Solar Development is not Essential Best can be collocated wherever there is access to the grid the benefit of collocation minimizes the cost of infrastructure which is only beneficial to Banks commercial and economic reasons aren’t material planning commissions and
Shouldn’t be afforded any weight number three alternative site assessments don’t consider enough Alternatives smaller best developments or Brownfield sites are not considered only green belt there is no evidence that this needs to be adj to the substation the only benefit is commercial which is not a material planning consideration number four
Destruction of green belt and an unwanted president of industrialization if the target for leads is carbon neutrality and no other sites exist it’s highly likely that this site will be used for further best development because the precedent will already be set the cumulative effect is a slippery slope and directly contradicts Green
Belt planning protections the planning planning officer acknowledges this in the planning report number five best is not not renewable energy and therefore not a special Circumstance the purpose of a best is to store energy rather than to generate renewable or low carbon energy therefore only limited weight can
Be attached there’s no evidence that the best will only store Green energy in addition to the above Banks Renewables haven’t provided definitive plans on technology materials will be decided after consent is given and the noise assessments performed are hypothetical very risky considering best Technology and Safety monitoring is in its infancy
This is also the very first development for banks who have no previous experience in best less than four months ago it was proven that no special circumstances exist when the application for a 25 megawatt B on the opposite side of barnesdale road is refused I sent you all the planning
Officers reports please afford this great evidence as this sets the precedent for preserving the green belt L of Al and Bywater kiix and ledston over to councelor Lewis thank you um I would just pick up one point from the office’s presentation which in some of the mapping showing The
Wider residential areas the uh p site to the south of the application site to the south of Park Lane is now developed completely uh within Park Lane of some area shown undevelopment on that plan so I just think that’s uh worth pointing out as it sort of illustrates that there
Are houses closer um closer to the site I think my points following on from Allison and the campaign group’s comments are threefold really I think first of all the the fact that when myself and Council harand were putting on our objection we were responding to emerging planning policy I think shows
That this is a very uh new technology um and one that I think the um I would ask the plans panel to consider carefully around this it isn’t a um um it isn’t a discussion around the principles of um um energy how we reform the grid how we
Make the grid fit for the 21st uh Century but it isn’t looking at a application for a a a specific site and I think that’s important to remember as um was pointed out in the office’s report we uh have as a um account agreed a solar um um a solar farm on this
Location I think that recognizes that we all understand the need for electricity generation to move on to different methods to agree decarbonization but I think this is a a different matter um we are looking at and I think and again the concerns Allison set out about the um um
About the fire concerns and around the site being uh within the Green P ones that the panel should consider to make we absolutely satisfied about this application and this uh location thank you chair thank you uh any questions for either councelor LS or Allison ccor
Hawood um hi yeah I’d just like you to expand on the fire safety concerns because reading the report there’s been quite a lot of um consultation with West yoria F rescue service um who had a lot of concerns to start with and it doesn’t n the the applicant is saying that as
Far as they’re concerned it complies but um I’m not I can’t see an exact um replica from from where sh fire and rescue so I just wonder if you could expand a bit on the on the fire safety concerns and where where that’s got
To sure just give me a second WR it all down so the the the first main points in the nfcc as I spoke about earlier is that actually that guidance suggests that the battery unit should be six meters apart but in the plans they’re actually 3 meters apart so so that
Doesn’t comply to the regulations the the probably the most important one in terms of fire and access is that there should be at least two access roads there’s only one access road which is single track and it’s actually prone prone to heavy flooding we did submit a numerous amount of photographs of
Flooding even even up to this year to be fair um and to show that actually that that floods so obviously if if there is some kind kind of you know incident then obviously it be really difficult for somebody to try and access that site and
And it doesn’t meet the nfcc um I do have further information just bear with me a second um yeah so the other thing I want to say is obviously it says um Bank Banks said that that it they confirm that the requirements of the nfcc guidance will
Be adhered to well obviously those two first points there say it’s not been adhered to and then the second thing is it’s actually evidenced in the Northeast plans report dated the 20th of the 3D as well um so that’s in the planning officers report uh the nfcc states that buildings should
Be at least 25 meters from the batteries um there is a building within 25 Metter of of this whether it’s on manned or not is immaterial um the other thing is that the suppression system hasn’t been yet selected so how can that be determined to be appropriate because all of this
Technology is being decided after the event counc Hazel are you okay with our do you want to follow up sure I think I won’t repeat what Allison said and the lot that is in the uh papers I do think this underlined the point around establishing very clearly around this site um the panel
Satisfaction uh that it is um it is an appropriate um it is an appropriate development to um Grant permission to build and operate if if light saor um um um light saor are still some gaps in the uh in the um fire management plan for this site particularly around the
Suppression system which is pretty critical obviously the last thing um anybody wants is to get to position where um where the fire service having to get involved but again if if part of that is a fire suppression system in terms of managing the site and I think there’s still some questions there could
I just add one final thing also sorry um the nfcc guidance states that vegetation should be managed to limit fire risk however the applicant uh man says that they’ll manage it but in other documentation it states that that vegetation will only be managed for 5 years you coner Jones as a former
Resident of Al Bywater I know that book quite well and I’ve seen that field for two and a half feet before now as it’s at the bottom of but Hill is but Hill if I remember rightly I’m quite surprised that the original ping permission was given that to because I’m aware of how
Bad that that area all the way into Castleford fors so I’m slightly surprised on a single track if anything goes wrong what access is going to be given and how are people going to get on that site I and the entrance to be honest is very narrow as you get into
There and also if the building did take place it would cause considerable problems to traffic going up towards l m so I’m concerned on that element but just confirming that that field on a pretty regular basis does follow thank you I think the um I mean I mean I
Think we need to be clear there’s a a permission given for a solar farm and clearly the operation for a solar farm is very different to the operation of a battery energy storage system but um you’re right it’s barnesdale Road on Mary panel Hill for people who’ve lived
In the area um might know it has uh those fields are um um have in with recent climate change be very prone to um having a lot of uh not just Flooding at at times of high rainfall but a lot of standing water uh in them as well thank you councelor
Anderson I don’t know whe which of the two wants to answer the question maybe councelor Lewis may have greater knowledge or may not but in terms of paragraph 145 the third bullet point it says there are no suitable uh sites located uh out of the out with the green
Bell which is which is a comment there and then on paragraph 153 it goes on that an alternative site assessment has been carried out did the applicants disclose and this is why I was infering that maybe councelor Lewis was given this information as a member did the applicants disclose the alternative
Sites they looked at that’s question one and question two are you saying that as a principle leads shouldn’t be developing bessis and it’s inappropriate irrespective of where it is not just in this area or are you saying that there are alternative sites elsewhere in the city that this m could be put
In I think your first question is probably one for officers all the applicants um councilor Anderson uh in terms of um availability of sites I mean clearly um um um clearly there is nothing I don’t believe there’s anything so unique about a battery energy storage
System that it has to be um at this location other than as previously discussed the collocation with the um solar farm that has permission though it’s not been um built yet in terms of your second question I mean I’m I’m absolutely not saying uh these systems shouldn’t be built anywhere in leads I
Made it very clear you know this isn’t a discussion around um we’re not in a development fans panel meeting here discussing um overall policy we’re here um discussing this application and and and and the objection very clear I wouldn’t want the discussion to move away from this site and this application
Because like as as set out in the papers and um my comments at the beginning and and Allison Davis’s comments at the beginning we do not believe this site um is suitable that’s not um like I say we’re not opening up or I’m certainly not opening a debate about whether um
There are suitable um about um what suitable sites there are for battery energy storage I’m aware that you know in in in other districts former Power Station sites have been used for for this and things like this there is um still um previously developed industrial land located around Leeds and West
Yorkshire um but like I say that’s not the discussion I want to have here it is around this site and and and and the appropriate and we’ve covered some very specific reasons uh just in the last few questions around the flooding and around the fact there’s only one vehicle access
And I think this very relevant to application in front of us if am I allowed to add something to the first point because I could actually give you a bit of information about the first point if you don’t mind um so with the alternative site assessments the
Size of the development has been the been the main consideration when comparing to Alternative sites The Proposal includes a number of alternative sites discounted because the area wasn’t big enough so further research should be done in into kinds of sites utilizing them at a smaller scale perhaps rather rather than this one it
Was just discounted purely because of the size of the development that the developers wanted um the benefit of sighting it adjacent is only really due to the infrastructure Etc and if you look at other um best sites actually there is um another one where the grid Connections three kilometers away from the solar
Site in an EDF Renewables in Northampton Shire the grid connection is 8 kilometers away and creeky Beck probably the most famous one that everybody knows connects to an offshore wind farm and doger bank is 131 km from Shore at its nearest point so it does not need to be collocated thank
You right I can’t see any any more H so thank you very much to both of you uh can I now ask U Rachel hammans uh to come to the table please again uh when you’re ready you got four minutes to address to the panel thank
You thank you chair can everyone hear me okay good afternoon everyone I am Rachel Edmonds a senior panel at Banks renewable we have worked for over 15 years I am passionate about delivering projects that will benefit local communities as helping as well as helping us all achieve Net
Zero as a project team we have worked closely with your planning officers to ensure that our project has been sensitively designed we are grateful for the input and advice that we have received your offices have conducted a robust and thorough assessment that confirms that our proposals for delivering a battery energy storage
System are appropriate we hope that you will support and approve our application this afternoon so why batteries batteries are safe clean and highly efficient method for storing electricity to quote the National Grid battery storage Technologies are essential to speeding up the replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy batteries
Enable energy generated from renewable sources such as solar and wind to be stored and then released when power is most needed to date fossil fire power plants have TR traditionally been used to manage such Peaks and troughs our proposed battery will therefore make a valuable contribution towards our
Nations as well as your council’s journey towards net zero it will save approximately 6,900 tons of carbon dioxide per Anum it will also it will also contribute to the security of our energy Supply which has become an increasingly important consideration over the past few years the UK government estimates
That technology like battery storage systems could save the UK Energy System up to 40 billion by 2050 therefore reducing People’s Energy bills we’re aware that concerns have been raised rela to the safety aspects of batteries particularly fire safety which is something we’ve taken very seriously as a project team we have
Worked with West yorshire fire and rescue service on the site design each battery unit will have built- in fire prevention technology and the site layout has been designed to mitigate fire risk in the extremely unlikely event of a fire the site has been designed to eliminate fire spreading and
To ensure the fire service of the information and Facilities they need on site now we’ve established a need why this location the proposed battery is located within the boundary of the consented barnesdale solar Park the site has already been found to be suitable for renewable energy infrastructure and a
Detailed assessment found it to be the only available site for a battery within leads that present locating the battery within the solar site allows for the Shing sharing of site infrastructure including the grid connection which you will have seen this morning is located adjacent to the site the battery will protect and
Significant enhance wildlife habitats on site new trees and head RS will be planted and bat and bird boxes installed the site will have achieved biodiversity net gain of 75% the project will provide significant economic benefits for the local area around7 million will be invested in the local economy and in line with our
Company ethos we will prioritize the use of local firms where possible Bank Renewables is a track record of working with local communities and leads our hook Moore Wind Farm has been operating for almost 10 years and we’ve awarded £65,000 worth of Grants to local community over this
Period in summary there is a need for the proposed development it will help address the Nations as well as your ‘s climate emergency it is in a suitable location the consented solar farm has established the principle of renewable energy development in this location the batter will not extend the footprint of the
Solar farm the fire safety concerns have been addressed it has been concluded that fire risk from the proposed development is low I hope that you will support your planning officer’s recommendation and Grant planning permission for the barnesdale battery today thank you right thank you uh any questions counc
Millers hi there thank you for your presentation um you suggest that the fire safety concerns have been addressed um on page 33 paragraph 115 the West Yorkshire fire and rescue Service uh lays out a number of aspects of The Proposal relating to fire safety which they believe still require uh
Clarification um given the uh recommendations set out within the National Fire Chiefs Council guidance um could you explain uh and I’m happy to go through each bullet point uh individually why you’ve chosen to ignore uh the recommendations and put forward a proposal which um the West georia fire
And rescue service still has concerns with due to where we are in the development cycle we don’t have a specific Battery Technology that we’re going to use we haven’t selected A supplier it’ll be upon that point that we know exactly what the battery is going to be who the
Supplier is going to be that we will Design the appropriate suppression system for that type of that techn specific technology so that will be done in consultation with the fire service because we’re committed to our ongoing engagement with the fire service and it will also comply with the principles of
The naal fire chief’s guidance as well as the wider um UK European um guidance on suppression system so we are committed to making sure the suppression system is in line with the guidance it’s just we can’t tell exactly what that’s going to be at the moment because we
Don’t know the exact type of battery that type of Technology um can I ask when you will know that type of battery because I think it’s probably quite pertinent to our decision today to know uh what kind of batter is being used on a battery storage facility so apologies to clarify we know
The type of Technology it’s going to be a lithian ion battery the supplier and exactly the the type of lithian ion battery is not known so we don’t know who’s going to supply that battery and every supplier has a slightly different configuration the process is once the application is consented we would then
Go out to Tender to battery suppliers and it’s at that point following that competitive tender exercise that we will know which battery we’re going to put on site but we do know the type of battery is going to be a lithium iron battery should we perhaps move on to to
The next point in terms of the Four Points yep so I think the second Point relates to two vehicle access points and there are two access points into the battery compound um there’s one at the East side of the compound and one at the west side of the compound so the fire
Service can access the compound from both sides um in the extremely unlikely event of of a fire the the next Point comes on to the the minimum distance between units and um this the six meters basis the six meter guide six meter set out in the guidance is set out unless suitable
Design features can be introduced to reduce the spacing so the guidance is also a number of years old now and Battery Technology has moved on however the guidance does say make reference to this suitable design features now the batteries at barnesdale will include a 1hour f thermal barrier will be provided
And this firal barrier means that that separation distance from 6 meters can be reduced the spacing proposed at barnesdale is 3 m um and this is actually the higher end of design spacings when you take into account the design features that will be included um within within the
Batteries and the final Point um is the spacing between the batteries and buildings on site the the National Fire Chiefs guidance talks about the distance from occupied buildings and I think that’s an important point the buildings that are within 25 MERS of the batteries will be related to the battery facility
Itself it’ll be the Control building for the site which will be unoccupied the the closest occupied buildings to the site are Circa 300 MERS away which is a significant increase on on the 25 which is set out in the the guidance I hope you that kind of brings a bit more
Clarity to the position I think just also want to say that we have engaged with the fire service throughout this process and we’ve had a number of meetings with them to discuss this and we’ve worked with them to refine the design of the site and we’re committed to doing that moving forward getting
Consent for a a battery in this location is not the end of our engagement with the fire service it’s just the beginning of it we will continue to work with them prior to commencing development on site and as set out in the committee report and we’ve signed up through planning
Conditions we will also L with them on an annual basis with a fire management plan um to make sure they have any information that they need in the extremely unlikely event of a a fire thanks chair um can I just get some clarification on the uh the building
Which you say is unoccupied um will that building ever be manned at any point during the site there will be people in the building from time to time but it won’t be a permanent office for anything it’ll be a a base for when people are on site um undertaking maintenance so there will
Be times when there’s people in the building um but it won’t be a permanent um permanently occup thank you councelor Anderson and then councelor hasood I’ve got four questions one is we heard in the previous evidence that access to the grid isn’t necessarily needs to be just in the next
Field is that correct from your perspective is that a con is that a factor in deciding where you wanted to put this then in terms of question two the the comment was made that in terms of this best storage that we might not you might not be storing just green
Energy is that correct are you going to be storing non- green energy on this site and then uh you heard me asking coun Lewis the question about uh the sites the alternative sites you looked at did you offer to disclose to the residents and the local W members the alternative
Sites that you’ve looked at so that they can look at them themselves to see whether or not they how they compared did you offer that facility and then the final thing is we also heard the residents group pointing out that it is possible we gave a wide range of
Alternative locations that could be looked at up to Miles and Miles and Miles Away have you looked at any of those Miles and Miles Away uh as Alternatives or not we’ll work through your questions in order if that’s okay so in terms of access to the grid um the alternative
Sites assessment was based upon a kilometer to two kilometers distance from the grid connection and that relates directly to the cost of accessing um the grid and the feasibility of a scheme of this size the further you are away from the grid the more expense it becomes and then the
Larger the facility require to to make it viable so for a facility of this size you do need to be located with about a kilometer to two kilometers of the grid connection to make it to make it viable I’ll maybe pass across to my colleague
Fraser in a minute to pick up the point about uh necessarity green energy coming into the battery um in terms of the alternative sites assessment that was published as part of the planning application um it was submitted with the planning application and provided to the planning officer so that should will have been
Available on the planning portal for the public um and the scope of that alternative s assessment was agreed in consultation with the planning officers and we looked at all potentially suitable sites within the leads District area within leads Council area Fraser do you want to pick up the point about the
So just to be clear you did not look at any sites outside of the lead’s area because obviously there’s a number of other local authorities nearby and I’m not suggesting that we should necessarily get them to take it on but did you assess any of the neighboring authorities
Land not in specific relation to this site we just looked because that was agreed in terms of the scope with your planning officers hi everyone my name is fr Harrison I’m a technical manager at bank Renewables um so on your um renewable energy point there uh counselor once
Energy from any Generation Plant so be coal gas or wind or solar enters the grid it it loses its H particular kind of criteria for being picked back out again so once it enters the electricity system it it’s kind of inconsequential where that comes from um the energy that
The battery uses comes directly from the grid and as a whole in addition to other sites other B sites it will allow a general gradual reduction of carbon intensive generation such as coal and gas and move more to the kind of global and UK requirements for renewable energy
So it doesn’t pick out specifically renewable energy but it does pick out energy which which helps the transition through Net Zero i’ just like to comment on your first point as well the the benefit of the current location um is not just infrastructure and Commercial Savings the the solar Park and the best
Energy Park can work together to provide a more efficient Renewable Energy Service which is why we utilize the same substation compound to generate much higher efficiency than you would with just a solar Park on its own cwood um yeah thank you f firstly um can
I can I just point out we’re using the word unmanned it’s unstaffed and I’m really really disappointed that we’re still using words like unmanned that the language is really important so can I please ask that we use Staffing and unstaffed in the future please it’s really important yeah um with regards
Point two um councelor Miller went you you went through the four points with counselor Miller um point two regarding vehicle access um there is only the one Access Road um we’ve been on site this morning you’ve said that there are other points of access onto the site which the
Fire service could use um I’m not sure from the plans where these are but also what I am concerned about is we’ve heard about the flooding on that site and how it’s flooded so if we’re going to have trouble getting down a track how are we
Going to how how are they going to get through other points of access which aren’t a road or a track if there was a fire so um it’s okay saying there other points of access but I’m a bit concerned about flooding element and and how they would access those those points if you
Can tell us where they are please so in terms of the the flooding point there is a condition requiring us to submit a flood emergency plan prior to operation of the development and it’s as part of that flood flood emergency plan that we’ look to consider further in the event of a
Fire the access in the second access there the two access points into the compound are are either side side of the compound and we are exploring uh the opportunity for a second access track to the compound as well you okay with that c yeah okay councelor Jones
So as I know that area reasonably well I don’t see how you could have a secondary access point the the where we are at the moment is a very narrow gear and that that road folds quite regular that’s I don’t anybody SPS that so I don’t understand where you’re going to put a
Second point in and without clarifying that I’ve got enormous difficulty agreeing to anything on this to be absolutely honest yep councelor Johns do you want to switch your mic yeah thank you um so so as part of as part of both the flood prevention plan and the uh fire engage fire safety
Engagement with West short of fire service we have been looking at additional access points from out with the site the guidance um currently the nfcc guidance has two access points which we have distributed within the site boundary but we are exploring other options to the west and to the north to
Look at a a different access from rather than the the communication right any other questions in that case thank you very much uh can we now move on to questions to the officers please any questions uh counc B Clair thank you this is a question for
Highways uh in the report it says that there are going to be um uh increased movements of heavy Goods vehicles and traffic um is it any provision going to be made for reinstatement of the roads if there’s deterioration due to the increase in the traffic because um in
Our world there is a situation where there is some development going on and one of the roads involved has a lot of of increase of traffic of heavy Goods Vehicles which is causing considerable deterioration of the road so I wondered if any any uh provision was going to be
Made in this respect for this development thank you I think with this specific development because of the numbers of lores involved I think just looking at the I think there 48 vehicle movements a day in the construction period and that’s for the first two months um and that I
Think that includes 18 htvs a day so that’s roughly whatever 18 times uh two month 18 times 4 two months is but I think when you compare it to if you talk about the mor Alan you compare it to that the numbers are a lot less so there isn’t uh we
Didn’t condition a Highway uh condition survey because the numbers were a lot less and we didn’t feel like it was it was required in this instance so the the the situation is then that the you estimate that there will only be 18 uh these vehicles per
Day and it will be no more because on the situation in that one they assessed the it and it way above what what was act what’s actually happened and so do we have the guarantee that this is you know it’s only going to be this amount
Of vehicles well I guess all we can really do is go on their information and then as has happened I think they’ve stopped using the stopped um construction traffic has stopped on that at the moment isn’t it or is it started again so I think it’s been taken to
Enforcement because it was they were going over and above what was agreed any other questions counc Anderson of questions can we just clarify what you said in your later information about paragraph 36 which was that originally the climate and energy team had no comments to make and in your
Summing up you so are you saying categorically now that it is the view of this this part of the council that this application should be supported is that what they’ve said I’ve got number of other questions but is that what your synopsis said yes so I think at the time when
They’re initially consulted um time um so yeah time when there was at time when they were initially consulted they just had no comment to make on the scheme and but now um they’ve informed their their position is that they do support the scheme um obviously it’s subject to other um
Considerations which they but they are supportive of battery energy storage systems in general the green belt special circumstances do you feel that they have been made or not yeah I think there’s clear very special circumstances uh for this application um do you want me to expl no
No no no fine because you’ll see why I’m asking stages like this um fine uh in terms of let’s I can try and paraphrase a bit quicker right you you felt that we should use little or no evid no weight little or no weight to the emerging
Changes that we’re going to make that was in paragraph 57 and also in paragraph 7 3 some of us who are on development plans plan put a lot of effort into trying to get this so you’re saying that we shouldn’t put a lot of weight on the discussions that we’ve had
There is that is my understanding correct sorry are you talking about the emerging policy yeah um that’s only because it hasn’t been um adopted yet so although that does show support for B energy storage systems um and that is kind of in discussion with policy right now that to have that
Policy in future um to show support for energy storage system in general um subject to criteria but just at the moment in time can’t afford it that’s fine that’s point right the reason I question like that is that we all attended training courses and we were given the explicit instruction that
Officers recommend approval for something and it is policy compliant we’ve got to have very very good reasons for going against the officer recommendation so can I be clear that you are asking you’re telling me today that your strong recommendation is that this application should be approved and if I wanted to
Take a cont view I need to have very good reasons why I’m taking a cont view based on the training that we were given um yes that’s that’s that’s the case count so whenever whenever you’re going to go against officer recommendations obviously the the plans panel has to have very good clear
Planning reasons as to why they’re they’re coming to an alternative view right any other questions in that case we’ll move on to comments uh any comments councilor Millers um yeah I think it’s important to to reiterate that no members of the panel today have uh disagreed with the
Concept of uh bachor systems um what we’re being asked today is to decide whether this is an appropriate site uh for uh such a scheme um and whether we’ve been given enough um information today uh to make that decision um when I hear from the applicant that um you know
For example two roads uh into the site are being explored um I don’t fully understand why that exploration hasn’t already happened um and why an answer yes or no uh whether they um are willing to take on the recommendations of the West yoria fire and rescue Authority or
Not um why that decision hasn’t uh been made already um and I’m concerned that there are a number of aspects of the scheme um that are in a similar situation where we are to be told at a later date um in particular around some of the fire safety concerns um and today
Uh I’m concerned uh that we don’t quite have um that information um and so I would recommend that members of the panel think carefully about whether we do have a full uh view of the site today given the fact that uh battery en storage is not
Only new for leads uh but it is relatively new when it comes to planning policy um and we’re being asked to agree to very special circumstances um with this kind of development within the green belt uh despite the fact that um if you drive less than 10 minutes from this site
You’ll be in North Yorkshire Authority or you’ll be in Wakefield Authority neither of which um based on the applicants comments today it looks like alternative sites have been uh assessed within um so you know that is assuming that it’s correct uh that there are no similar sites within leads so um in suam
I I I don’t just don’t feel like we have enough information to make such a precedent setting decision today unfortunately right any any other comments as I hinted I don’t know honestly which way to go because I’ve got officers who have stated a view clearly to me but I have some concerns
Now are we I’m not I mean are we suggesting that we’re deferring this and if we’re going to defer it what’s the purpose of deferring it because that would be the first thing that our senior planning officer would say is fine okay what what are the reasons that you want
To defer it for and what benefit would come from deferring it uh can somebody help me and and my colleagues here coming up with reasons as to why we should defer it because I’m reluctant to approve it but going on the advice and the training I’ve been on I can’t
Honestly in all my heart of heart say no to it so can somebody help me please can somebody help us right okay is something new but one of the thing that I obviously while while looking at the report and listening to both the uh uh objetives
And the U and and and members one of the concern which comes to my mind was the the fire safety uh and that’s something that I have seen in my own world where a a in a block where someone was charging a battery and that sort of caused a fire
In a block of 99 flat so I’m just thinking when even though we’re talking about 300 M away from the general uh residential area that’s something I think we need to need to bear in mind and other thing was which was mentioned about the 3 m to 6 M units uh that’s
Another issue and the third was to do with the uh single track Rec road so I mean I’m not putting the words into anybody’s mouth here but I’m what I’m trying to help each other is that it is something new for our city but we want to make sure absolutely it’s our
Responsibility to make sure any scheme of this Nature has to be absolutely perfect uh and and especially the residents who live surrounding these sites so I’ll I’ll open it up if anybody has any other comments counc Millers yeah I mean I’m happy to propose that we defer um on the basis that uh
The West Shure uh fire and rescue Authority have asked for clarification about those four bullet points um obviously I asked and we’ve received some clarification verbally today we haven’t received that clarification um in detail within the report um and so I’d like to have that detail um one to
Understand whether uh they would go back and consider any of those aspects but two if the answer is no um then I’d like more detailed to understand why um it’s appropriate to uh go against the guidance okay I’ll I’ll bring Louis uh on on onto this but also uh I was going
To ask officers is there any any opportunity if if it does if the members do decide to defer it can we get the fire Services a representative of on this panel or can’t we I mean I don’t know what the protocol is for or and also some of the questions which were
Raised by the objectors is there any chance that have some sort clar Clarity on those issues as well I’ll bring Louis and then I’ll bring you David thank you chair um I think it’s probably right of me at this point in time just to give you some added context
To where we are with bezin leads um so in terms of the we do have existing facilities in Le which are granted uh so it’s not necessarily new to us as as officers but obviously possibly new to yourselves and I appreciate the industry is growing quite rapidly and the best
Facilities are getting much larger um so we have three approved already at some um nearly 400 megawatts on Brownfield Urban Land which is typically the best place to put them next to the substations um it achieves the economic goals of the developer as well as obviously the public benefits to us as
Um our community in terms of the electric State stores and gives out when it’s needed we also have one existing Bez already in greenbolt as well and that’s at Howden kff in moley and then in terms of one we’ve just refused at the opposite side of the
Road as as Alison mentioned um the objecting speaker um that was refused for very different reasons um than what we’re putting across and it’s probably worthwhile me telling you what the differences are so the Newton Lane uh Bez on the opposite side of barnesdale road was refused on greenb grounds
Because there were no very special circumstances which outweigh the rest of the home which I’m going to talk about as well um the site was on grade three agricultural land which is the best and most versatile where we’re trying and seek to protect that obviously for food
Production which is a council policy and objective uh the third reason was it was harmful to the lead shim and leadstone special landscape area the particular site we’re talking about today isn’t in a special landscape area that the opposite side of the road is so there are absolute material differences here
In terms of the fourth reason for refusal for that be uh there was there was a lack of information and assessment particularly in relation to listed assets and the impact on not just them directly but the setting whereas for this applicants provided that information and then the last one there
Was also potential pollution should a fire event occur we didn’t think in accordance with the advice from West Yia Fire Authority that there would be enough water containment on site that it would effectively rush off site and potentially end up in Downstream pollution um and we’ve got to be mindful
Of that given uh proximity to a trip SII um in in terms of outside of leads I’ll just be very brief to say that there are 525 consented Bez facilities in England so that’s uh sorry across the UK so that’s a large amount so whilst it’s new
To Le they are operational and have been operational but have particularly grown in terms of consent since 2021 um and in terms of battery energy storage in Green Belt we’ve looked at that in terms of weighing up how inspectors have you know regarded proposals elsewhere and also had regard
To permissions granted by the councils and it it’s really in favor that Bez developments within Green Belt subject to mitigation reduction in harm and suitable um very special circumstances the the balance has been set that it’s in favor of bezas now that’s not entirely all of them as I’ve
Just said we we’ve actually recommended refusal for one um at Newton Lane so it I want to specify that they are around they’re around in leads already they are nationwide however we do look at each one on a Case by case basis because whilst there might be opposite sides of
The road they are very very different in terms of their constraints thank you thank you for that Louis David yes thank thank you chair in terms of the the fire service we we can obviously if members wish us to do so we can ask for them to attend there is a
Bit of a health warning that I would put with that in that um ultimately members have got to come to view on the land use whether the the bear is an appropriate or acceptable land use inting on its own planning merits um and it’s also not for us as a
Plans panel to seek to impose or duplicate um other well far and safety regulations as it were and duplicate uh regimes that exist else elsewhere so although members are can perfectly understand why members would have concerns about the fire and safety aspect of it and it’s quite right to to
Quiz that and satisfy yourselves that it um that they’ve the applicant has taken all reasonable steps to make sure this is an appropriate facility given its location and proximity to Residential Properties ultimately the fire and safety aspect is not a matter for us we got to just decide it on its land use
Planning terms but having said that obviously members are being presented with information here today that you picked up on in terms of the second act access point we haven’t been um there’s no information that’s before you in terms of where that’s going to be what um how that’s going to be
Constructed um what the how it’s going to be designed generally where the root through is and what the implications are for the wider development that’s something that um we we haven’t got information in front of you on that so it is perfectly reasonable to defer consideration on the
Points that Council Miller has set out those four points in conjunction with that other matter for us to then come back with um further information as a later date for you thank you any any any comments or coun McKenna just a very quick one chair I’m
Uh listen very carefully to B I’m sorry I wasn’t able to get on the site visit I had a chair’s brief from De planning committee at the same time but I’m not convinced I’m not convinced that the test has been messed for putting inside the green belt
I’ve been on planet 36 years and I have to say that very special circumstances mean exactly that and I would like to know more details about alternative scientists that were looked at uh I understand why they they want to be next to for economic reasons and why wouldn’t
They but at the end of the day I I’m not convinced that uh uh the it we can set aside green belt for that we we’ve always been guarded our Green Belt it’s rapidly diminishing and it seems to me that these uh uh the storage and uh
Green energy whether it be uh uh whether it be storage or collection seems to be uh wanting to locate in the green belt you know and I’d like you know if you replicate out all over the country then we’re going to lose an awful lot of
Green belt and that’s my opinion on that I would need convincing on that chair coun hazord um yeah I mean uh David just said that we have to satisfy ourselves that the applicants taken all reasonable steps and I don’t think at this point that we have um and I think we need uh
Further information on that as he said on that on that second Access Road um I think we’ve all got concerns and um and obviously as counselors we always look at as well um you know making sure that the communities um that we represent uh feel safe with whatever that all reasonable steps have
Been taken right the proposal has been proposed by councelor H would anyone to say yeah yeah sure yeah sure if I can just colate the the various views that I’ve heard around just to make sure that we capture everything in in the deferral when members take the vote on this so we
Got the the Four Points which are further information the Four Points set out of paragraph 115 to do with fire safety we’ve got further information in terms of alternative sites looking outside of the leads um district with regard particularly with um impacts in terms of the green belt more information
Or Fuller information in respect of various special circumstances the case of very special circumstances and further information in respect to the second access that’s being talked about today uh in terms of what it actually where it will be how it’s going to be constructed what route
It would take Etc sure so hopefully I’ve caught everything there councelor Jennings Jenkins sorry could just add in the um response from the climate team um so we can see that in in writing as well and I just wonder if you’ve got any technical expertise on looking at batter looking the the
Possibility of the battery that might be um employed right thank you uh youve heard what David said and uh counc Haz has proposed that it needs to be deferred anyone to Second Council Jones all in favor anyone against any exstension it’s carried de do you want to confirm the wordss obviously was
Uh the vote was unanimous chair thank you right date and the time of the next meeting will be Thursday the 25th of April at 1:30 p.m. so I’ll will close the meeting thank you very much and have a safe Journey