Decision on ‘overbearing’ bid for ‘industrial unit in the middle of a field’
Stroud District Council have rejected plans to change the design of the battery storage site.
A controversial bid to change the design of a planned 36-megawatt battery storage site near Slimbridge Wetland Centre has been rejected.
Plans for 24 battery storage containers and inverters, 132kw transformer and a small substation were approved last year.
But Slimbridge Energy Ltd sought permission to rotate the transformer by 180 degrees and increase the substation’s size on the almost two-acre site north of Kingston Road.
They also wanted to reduce the number of containers on the site from 22 to nine. Stroud District Council considered the scheme at their development control meeting on June 17.
Officers recommended rejecting the scheme due to the size and scale of the proposed distribution network operators (DNO) building.
They said it was “unsympathetic, highly visual and incongruous” in the countryside.
Councillor Lindsey Green (C, Berkeley Vale), who represents the area at Ebley Mill, said the building would be “overbearing”.
“With the building being much bigger and taller any hedging will no longer screen the building from view,” she said.
“This will have a detrimental impact on the countryside and character of Slimbridge”.
She said the plans did not comply with local planning policies.
There is also a fire safety risk, Cllr Green said.
Slimbridge Parish Council chairman Mike Stayte spoke at the meeting.
He said they are totally against the plans because of the increase in height of the building.
“It will intrude on the countryside, it will be higher than hedging going to be put there. It seems to be incongruous to put an industrial unit in the middle of a field next to Slimbridge.
“It’s next to the waterfowl trust, the village and a campsite.
“The road down there is the only road in and out. If there was a problem on that site, it would trap a lot of people and be very problematic.”
Angela Watts, speaking in favour of the application, said the minor amendments are deemed to be acceptable to the planning officer.
She said the main issue is the size and prominence of the DNO building.
“National Grid Electricity Distributions (NGED) the DNO and the size of the building is determined not by the applicant but the DNO,” she said.
“The design guidelines have changed recently and the applicant was required to seek consent for this larger building.”
She said the height has increased by about 90cm but would still be in the centre of the development.
The applicant has been in urgent consultation with NGED to agree to an exception to allow for the building to be smaller, Ms Watts told the committee.
She said they are willing for the building to be the same height and broadly the same width.
The main consideration is the building’s shape as a rectangle instead of L shape, she added.
And said that they are exploring steel green painted structure to blend in.
“These changes would offer benefits to the landscape visual issues when compared to the consented design,” she said.
She said the applicant requested the committee defer a decision on the plans to submit a revised scheme agreed with NGED.
Councillor Gary Luff (G, Painswick and Upton) said the building was substantially different to the original proved.
He said the council goes through a proper process and there are options for them to come back.
“I’m generally in favour of the need for battery storage,” he said.
“We’ve got a climate crisis and we need to do stuff about it.
“But that doesn’t free them from going through the process like everyone else has to do and making interventions at the right time.”
He said deferring the proposals could cause them issues and does not encourage applicants to do things perfectly the first time.
The committee voted unanimously to reject the proposals.