Agenda item

Land South of Staythorpe Road, Staythorpe - 22/01840/FULM

Site Visit: 10.10am – 10.40am


The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development which sought to update Members on an application for the construction of a Battery Energy Storage System and associated infrastructure.  Members attended a site visit prior to the commencement of the Planning Committee as the proposal was particularly contentious and the aspects being raised could only be viewed on site. 


Members considered the detailed presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.


Schedules of Communications were circulated prior to and at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received following publication of the Agenda from the Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Action Group; the Agent; the Agent of the Battery Storage Scheme currently pending on land to the north (east of Averham); the Case Officer, the Environmental Health Officer (NSDC); Nottinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service; Averham, Kelham & Staythorpe PC; and the Applicant.


Councillor K Melton, speaking as Local Ward Member stated that the application failed on 3 issues: scale; impact; and character.  He referred to the loss of ancient and mature hedgerow; the poll of local residents undertaken by both the applicant and the BESS; noise pollution; failure of sequential testing; and harm to landscape and character. 


Having declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, Councillor Melton left the meeting after addressing the Committee.


Councillor Bradey, on behalf of Averham, Kelham & Staythorpe Parish Council spoke against the application in accordance with the view of the parish council contained within the report.


Members considered the application and whilst acknowledging the requirement for greener energy solutions raised concerns on a number of issues including: the potential for flooding at the site; the risk of fire or explosion from the storage of such an energy source; loss of high-quality agriculture land; impact on rights of way; detrimental visual impact; lighting of the scheme and mitigation thereof. 


In response to several requests to defer determination of the application until it could be considered with similar applications in order to consider cumulative impact, the Business Manager advised that each application must be determined on its own merits.  Unless Members required additional information, the application should be determined without delay.  She added that when the next such application came before Committee, the effect of cumulative impact could be considered at that time. 


Having considered advice given by the Committee’s Legal Advisor in relation to pre-determination and bias, Councillor Saddington abstained from voting, as recorded below.


A vote was taken and lost with 10 votes against and 1 abstention for approval.  The application was proposed for refusal by Councillor Lee and seconded by Councillor Oldham.


AGREED      (with 10 votes For and 1 Abstention) that contrary to Officer recommendation, planning permission be refused, subject to the following reasons:



i.          Scale of Development

ii.         Design of Development

iii.       Visual Impact

iv.       Loss of amenity without sufficient mitigation

v.         Perceived Safety Risks

vi.       Loss of Agricultural Land

vii.     Failure to pass Sequential Flood Risk Test


In accordance with paragraph 13.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against Officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.




C Brooks


S Crosby


L Dales


A Freeman


P Harris


J Lee


K Melton

Did Not Vote

D Moore


E Oldham


P Rainbow


S Saddington


M Shakeshaft


M Spoors


L Tift


T Wildgust



Councillor Melton returned to the meeting.

Supporting documents: