Devon CPRE berates Torridge District Council over the safety of a permitted Battery Energy Storage Site in the countryside

The Devon branch of the countryside charity is taking Torridge District Council to task for neglecting to consult with the Fire & Rescue Service about the safety hazards posed by a Battery Energy Storage Site (BESS), recently approved as part of a 7.6 MW solar farm at East Rightadown Farm, Brandis Corner.

Devon CPRE’s original objections, submitted in February and March this year, pointed out that it was misleading that the title of the application only referred to a solar farm as the main component of the proposal was, in fact, a 22MW Battery Energy Storage System. Application 1/1300/2022/FULM was entitled ‘Installation of 7.6 MW solar farm including transformers, sub-stations, antenna and ancillary equipment (amended plans) | Land At East Rightadown Farm Brandis Corner Devon’.

Devon CPRE highlighted the potentially dangerous fire risks involved with such storage sites and advised that, to protect local residents and the environment,   Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service should be consulted before this major application was determined.

The application had originally been called to the planning committee for debate but the call-in was inexplicably withdrawn a couple of weeks ago, allowing the planning officer to make the decision under delegated powers.

Devon CPRE has now written to Torridge’s CEO about the council’s failure to seek expert advice or hold an informed debate before approving the application. By contrast, East Devon District Council’s planning committee refused a BESS in the last few weeks, as councillors were concerned about public safety after consulting with Devon & Somerset Fire & Rescue Service.

Devon CPRE are calling on Torridge District Council to adhere to its own policies, something they claim is being wilfully ignored with regards to this application. The policy for the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan states: ‘Policy DM01 of the NDTLP relates to amenity considerations and notes, development will be supported where:

(a)  It would not significantly harm the amenities of any neighbouring occupiers or uses; and

(b)  The intended occupants of the proposed development would not be harmed as a result of the existing or allocated uses.

DM04 also aims to ensure the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers are safeguarded. In addition to this, Policy DM02 of the NDTLP aims to ensure that developments do not cause an unacceptable risk to public health and safety due to hazards, pollution and/or air quality.’

In the report from Torridge District Council’s planning officer, it was stated that: ‘Representations have been received that are deemed to not be material considerations in the assessment of this planning application. This includes sources of panels, disposal of panels at end of life, the carbon footprint of importing panels, impacts upon the national grid and fire risk.

The matters raised are acknowledged, however, these are matters that go beyond the provision of local and national adopted planning policy. Furthermore, planning applications are solely to assess the use of land rather than the control of process where these are subject to separate regimes.’

Commenting on Torridge’s decision to approve the BESS, Devon CPRE's Energy Spokesman Dr Phillip Bratby said: “This is a major application in the countryside. We submitted an objection well in advance detailing our safety concerns and corresponded directly with the council’s planning officer, to no avail. It is our understanding that the risk to the health and safety of local communities posed by a proposal is, according to the NPPF-2021, a material planning issue. Why didn’t Torridge consult the Fire & Rescue Service, as East Devon District Council did? Torridge simply replied that such safety risks are not a material planning consideration!  But, if they are in East Devon, they surely are in Torridge!

“We are not convinced that Torridge District Council fully understood what this application was about, nor the safety hazards. If that’s the case, it shouldn't have been allowed. I can't think of another such application that has not gone to the plans committee for a debate. This one should have done. What precedent does it set? That Torridge is an easy target and will permit major schemes without properly analysing them? We should rightly expect more from our planning authorities.”

Phil concludes: “There have been over 60 accidents worldwide at BESS facilities, involving fire or explosion and resulting in serious injuries and death of first responders. Highly toxic vapours are also released. I certainly wouldn't want to live within a few hundred metres of such a facility."