Plans refused for ‘battery energy storage system' development in South Tyneside
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
South Tyneside Council’s Planning Committee, at a meeting this week, blocked an application for land near the West Boldon Substation, which sits south of the A184 near Boldon Colliery and West Boldon.
The plans from Whirlwind Energy Storage Ltd, submitted back in 2023, aimed to create a landscaped compound surrounded by perimeter landscaping to house energy storage equipment.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThis included up to 360 energy storage cabinets, associated power converter units and a “grid connection compound”, as well as control rooms, a development site office, storage container and CCTV masts.
Those behind the proposed facility said it aimed to “import and store electrical power during periods of oversupply from renewable generators”, such as wind turbines, and that this power would “otherwise be wasted”.
It was noted that the stored power would subsequently be “exported back to the [National] Grid during periods of low renewable generation which, in most cases, offsets the use of gas”.
As a result, applicants argued the plans would “deliver significant carbon savings, helping with moves to decarbonise the UK electricity grid”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdApplicants were also seeking permission for an operational period of 50 years for the South Tyneside development, after which the site would be decommissioned and restored to its current state.
During a council consultation exercise on the plans, the application sparked more than 30 public objections, as well as objections from some borough councillors and Jarrow’s constituency MP.
Concerns ranged from the site’s proximity to the River Don and a local wildlife site and potential pollution impacts, to fire safety issues and the development’s visual impact on the Green Belt.
Arguments for and against the scheme were put forward at a Planning Committee meeting on June 17, 2024, at South Shields Town Hall.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThose behind the scheme previously acknowledged the site was within the Green Belt but said the location had been dictated by its proximity to West Boldon Substation.
It was argued that the plans would demonstrate ‘very special circumstances’ needed to outweigh harm to the Green Belt in council planning policy terms, with applicants citing both the demand for the infrastructure and its benefits.
This included the delivery of “very significant carbon reductions, making a direct contribution to addressing the causes of climate change”.
Similar arguments were made by an agent for the applicant at South Shields Town Hall on Monday, along with assurances there would be a range of measures to reduce ecological impacts and to keep the energy storage equipment and local area safe.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThis included monitoring of the equipment and fire suppression systems to prevent issues at the site.
However, critics of the scheme, who also spoke at the same meeting, raised concerns about the impacts of the development on the local area, as well as fears about its location and fire safety.
Councillor Alison Strike, Boldon Colliery representative, said the development would “damage the natural landscape” around West Boldon and would have an “unavoidable detrimental impact on residents”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdCllr Strike also raised concerns about fire risks at the site, given a previous incident at a similar facility in Liverpool, as well as questions about the wider impacts of the development on locals and wildlife.
Another public objector claimed the site had been chosen due to its distance to the existing West Boldon Substation as a “low investment, shovel ready” scheme.
The objector raised further concerns about public safety, noise and visual impacts, and added the scheme represented a “huge, brutal, chilling, cynical infringement of the Green Belt”.
South Tyneside Council’s planning department had recommended the battery energy storage system for approval and concluded it met the very special circumstances needed to outweigh the “small scale harm” to the Green Belt.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThis was mainly because of the site’s location and the renewable energy benefits of the scheme, along with wider ecological mitigation measures including green roofing, enhancing habitats along the River Don, sustainable drainage and “new hedgerow, bat roost and bird nesting provision”.
However, councillors were not convinced and eventually voted to reject the plans, against the advice of council planning officers.
It was noted that the scheme would have negative impacts by changing the character of the site, a view shared by the council’s ecology team during a council consultation.
Although no formal objection was lodged, the council’s ecology team said the plans would have an “adverse impact on the
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Adnatural character of the site” due to the “change from agriculture
and semi natural habitat to hardstanding”.
Following questioning by councillors, it was also established that the development would benefit the National Grid across the whole system, rather than providing specific local benefits.
Councillor David Kennedy said the development would be a “blot on the landscape” and raised concerns about drainage and flooding in the context of removing the “sponge effect” of existing farmland.
Councillor Neil Maxwell said he understood the applicant’s reason for choosing the site but that the loss of Green Belt should not be a “price to pay”.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdCouncillor Sarah McKeown added she “understood the need” for the type of development but said her concerns were linked to how close it was to West Boldon and potential safety issues.
Councillor Geraldine Kilgour, who led calls to refuse the application, requested that the committee reject the scheme on several grounds.
This included the plans representing “inappropriate development” which would be harmful to the Green Belt, as well as the development changing the character of the landscape.
After being put to the vote, the Planning Committee voted unanimously to reject the planning application.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThe applicant has the right to challenge the council’s refusal decision by lodging an appeal with the Secretary of State.
For more information on the planning application, visit South Tyneside Council’s planning portal website and search reference: ST/0486/23/FUL
Comment Guidelines
National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.