A contentious proposal to alter the design of a planned 36-megawatt battery storage site near Slimbridge Wetland Centre has been turned down.
Last year, plans were greenlit for 24 battery storage containers and inverters, a 132kw transformer, and a small substation. However, Slimbridge Energy Ltd sought approval to rotate the transformer by 180 degrees and expand the substation's size on the nearly two-acre site north of Kingston Road.
The firm also proposed reducing the number of containers on the site from 22 to nine. Stroud District Council reviewed the scheme at their development control meeting on 17 June.
READ MORE: {}
Council officers advised against the scheme due to the size and scale of the proposed distribution network operators (DNO) building, describing it as "unsympathetic, highly visual and incongruous" in the rural setting.
Councillor Lindsey Green (C, Berkeley Vale), who represents the area at Ebley Mill, described the building as "overbearing". She said: "With the building being much bigger and taller any hedging will no longer screen the building from view. This will have a detrimental impact on the countryside and character of Slimbridge". She argued that the plans did not align with local planning policies.
Slimbridge Parish Council chairman Mike Stayte voiced his opposition at the meeting due to the proposed increase in the building's height.
He said: "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."
Most Read
Speaking in support of the application, Angela Watts noted that the minor modifications have been deemed acceptable by the planning officer. She highlighted that the primary concern revolves around the size and visibility of the DNO building.
"National Grid Electricity Distributions (NGED) is the DNO and the size of the building is determined not by the applicant but the DNO," she explained.
Watts mentioned that recent changes in design guidelines necessitated the applicant to seek approval for a larger structure. According to her, the height has been increased by approximately 90cm but will remain in the centre of the development.
The applicant has urgently consulted with NGED to reach an agreement on reducing the building's size, as Watts told the committee.
She said they were willing for the building to be the same height and broadly the same width. The main consideration now is the building's shape, which is proposed to be rectangular rather than L-shaped, and she mentioned that they are considering a steel green painted structure to help it blend into the surroundings.
"These changes would offer benefits to the landscape visual issues when compared to the consented design," she added.
The applicant asked the committee to defer their decision on the plans, with the intention of submitting an amended scheme that is in concurrence with NGED, she said.
Don’t miss
Councillor Gary Luff (G, Painswick and Upton) observed that the building significantly deviated from the initially approved design.
He said: "I'm generally in favour of the need for battery storage. 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 argued that deferring the proposals might present complications and fails to incentivise applicants to get things right the first time.
The committee resolved unanimously to turn down the proposals.