Agenda item

Proposed development of a battery energy storage system, associated infrastructure, access and landscaping

 

LOCAL MEMBERS: Councillor Sasha Williams and Councillor Gwion Emyr

 

Link to relevant background documents

 

 

 

DECISION: To Refuse

 

Reason:

 

1.       This development would be detrimental to the landscape as it would introduce an industrial element to an open grassland site in a prominent location that would be visible within notable views of Eryri National Park. The application is therefore contrary to policies ISA 1, ADN 3, PCYFF 1, PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan as they relate to ensuring that developments are appropriate to their location.

 

 

Proposed development of battery energy storage system, associated infrastructure, access and landscaping

 

Attention was drawn to the late observations form

 

Some Members had visited the site on 12-01-26

 

a)     The Planning Manager highlighted that these types of plans stored surplus energy from renewable energy developments and the grid when electricity demand was low, releasing the electricity later when there was demand and therefore helping to provide energy supply safety.

 

It was explained that the site included 1.95ha of rough grazing land located adjacent to the existing Pentir electricity sub-station in open countryside outside any development boundary, and within the Dinorwig Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest; the land had been classified as grade 3a and 5 in the Agricultural Land Classification: predictive map for Wales.

 

It was expressed that the applicant explained that the proposal was for temporary planning permission, for a period of 40 years, following which the equipment would be removed from the site and the land restored to its current state. It was confirmed that the applicant had undertaken a pre-application consultation as the proposal was a development over 1ha and therefore the Welsh Government had defined it as a major development.

 

The development was screened for an Environmental Impact Assessment and the likely impact of the proposal on the environment, and having used the specific criteria, it was not considered that the impact of the development on the environment was insufficient to justify submitting an environmental statement with the application.

 

Assessing the visual impact of the proposal, and despite acknowledging that a logical process had been followed in the selection of the site, it was noted that the site was separated from the sub-station by a significant highway and there was no significant existing screening for the location. Concern was expressed that the development could be harmful to the natural beauty of the area, especially when viewed from the north-west, where the site would take away from the views of the Eryri National Park. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was submitted with the application, including a visual impact assessment from several directions. The conclusions of that work were that, despite noting that there would be some significant local impacts, the development would have a limited harmful impact on the landscape as a whole. In addition to the current screening offered by land formation and growth, the development would include landscaping features, such as a row of trees, which would assist with the integration of the development into the surrounding landscape. In addition, reference was made to the existing developed features, including the pylons that were immediately nearby, which would reduce its impact on the landscape. It was also noted that the development would only impact the nearby area, and it would be reversible.

 

It was noted that the site was within Landscape Character Area 4 - Caernarfon - Coastline and Plateau within the Gwynedd Landscape Strategy (2012) and that Strategy noted that every development proposal in the area should respect the nature of the pattern and details of the landscape's historic constitution. With the site also being within a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest, it was not considered that extending significant industrial development into open grassland was appropriate in these areas. Additionally, the extension of developed lands to the south of the highway would significantly disrupt the current pattern of the landscape, particularly given that all other developments associated with the Pentir Sub-station had been restricted to the lands north of the road, where there was considerable screening from existing tree and land formation.  

 

It was considered that the development would likely have a harmful impact on the landscape and on the area's visual amenities as a result of its location which was separate from other local developments. Consequently, the proposal did not meet criterion 2 of Policy ADN 3, or policies ISA 1, PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 4 as they considered protecting the visual amenities of the area.

 

It was noted that the application's agent wished to defer the application to hold a further discussion regarding the above objection, as well as other matters, but it was expressed that an assessment of the site confirmed that its location meant that it was not considered that it could be acceptable in terms of its visual impact.

 

In the context of Transport, Ecology and Noise matters, although some of these matters could be overcome, it would not change the recommendation of the application. It was noted that the amended plan which offered biodiversity mitigation measures had not been formally submitted as part of the application but had been submitted to the Biodiversity Unit for discussion.

 

In terms of the amended plans for the new access, it was noted that additional observations had been received from the Transport Unit in response to the amended plans confirming, given the fact that the number of vehicles servicing the site was relatively low, the visibility provision was acceptable and based on this, refusal reason number 2 was removed. In addition, it was noted that confirmation had been received from Welsh Water withdrawing their objection and only proposing observation and advice notes.

 

It was considered, although the principle of this type of development could be acceptable in the countryside for practical reasons relating to the efficiency of the electricity distribution system, this specific development was unacceptable due to its likely visual impact based on its location. The industrial development would be on an open grassland site in the countryside that would go beyond the natural boundaries of developments associated with Pentir Sub-station. As a result, it was considered that the proposal was unacceptable and therefore it was recommended to refuse the application.

 

b)     Taking advantage of the right to speak, the applicant’s agent noted the following points:

·        The applicant was under the impression that all matters had been addressed, but having received the latest information, saw that matters such as landscaping and visual impacts had not been fully addressed

·        The applicant had not had sufficient time to respond to the officers' concerns about landscape and visual impacts matters and was very eager to have a further discussion

·        The professional landscaper's observations had not been included in the officers' assessment

·        It was possible to research the possibilities of mitigating the visual impacts and strengthening the screening

·        Should the concerns have been shared sooner, it could have been possible to have a discussion to look at further amendments in more detail. The opportunity was not proposed - this was not a good planning practice

·        As these matters had not been fully discussed, the Committee was asked to consider deferring the decision in order to hold further discussions.

 

c)     The Monitoring Officer noted that the Local Members had no observations to offer on the application.

ch) It was proposed and seconded to defer the application to give the applicant the opportunity to consider the officers' concerns about the visual impacts.

 

A vote was taken on the proposal. The proposal fell.

 

It was proposed and seconded to refuse the application in accordance with the recommendation.

RESOLVED:

 

Reason:

 

This development would be detrimental to the landscape as it would introduce an industrial element to an open grassland site in a prominent location that would be visible within notable views of Eryri National Park. The application is therefore contrary to policies ISA 1, ADN 3, PCYFF 1, PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 4 of the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan as they relate to ensuring that developments are appropriate to their location.