People living close to the site of a proposed 4,000 square metre battery storage compound have described the plans as a “ticking time bomb” that would impact families, wildlife and the greenbelt.
The plans for the proposed lithium battery energy storage site on the edge of Sheffield at Coal Aston, Dronfield, were initially rejected by North East Derbyshire District Council in June last year – but developers Ylem Energy have appealed the decision.
Nearly two dozen local residents, business owners, and community leaders attended the Planning Inspectorate appeal hearing yesterday at the council’s offices at Wingerworth.
Charles Hall, who lives overlooking the site, told the hearing: “I feel I’m like sitting on a ticking timebomb with where you’ve proposed to put it.”
The proposal would see a 4338 square metre battery energy storage system (BESS) compound – used to store renewable energy from the power grid – constructed on greenbelt land next to Dyche Lane, which links Sheffield with North East Derbyshire.
Mr Hall told ShefNews he had been left “gutted” by the proposal which would “massively” effect his property.
He acknowledged meeting net zero target was “massive undertaking and “we’ve got to be responsible for trying to get energy”.
“However, it’s got to be done in a manner that isn’t affecting communities, destroying families, where people are living.”
Mr Hall added he believed the applicant was “effectively trying to do the right thing, but in the wrong way – it’s just not the right place.”
Other public attendees at the hearing voiced concerns over fire safety, citing fires at BESS compounds such as a recent one in East Tilbury.
John Pople, owner of New Leaf Plant Centre, which is situated adjacent to the site, said: “We’re really concerned that if there is a fire and a toxic plume comes over, we would really struggle to ensure 200 plus elderly customers are safe.
“We’ve got really strict protocols for looking after [customers] and closing down areas, [but] we’re really concerned we wouldn’t be able to get customers to a safe part of the centre quickly enough.”
Mr Pople also spoke of the “incredibly visual” impact he believed the development would have on his garden centre.
“People come to New Leaf because it’s rural countryside, fresh air, [and] it’s quite a nice stress relief to get out and wander around,” he said.
“So I think yes, with this industrial proposal next door, it’s going to be such a change.”
Prior to the hearing, North East Derbyshire District council said in its statement of case that the development was “unacceptable”.
The statement read: “The development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would cause harm to its openness and purposes. Additionally, the development would give rise to landscape harm.
“Also, there would be a small amount of harm weighing against the proposal arising from the loss of arable land and harm to the heritage significance of the Moss Valley Conservation Area from development within its setting. There are no considerations of sufficient weight that would outweigh this Green Belt and other harms and that would amount to very special circumstances sufficient to justify the proposal.”
In its appeal representation, Dronfield Town Council also “strongly objected” to the proposal, labelling it “totally unsuitable on this site”.
Ylem Energy say in their appeal statement there would be “limited harm to landscape character and openness, very limited harm associated with the loss of agricultural land, and the harm by reason of inappropriateness and limited harm to openness, are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits set out.”
It also said that, if approved, the development would be “temporary” as “the equipment would removed and the land returned to its original condition and the end of the project life in 30 years”.
Shelley Hinson, co-ordinator at Dronfield 2gether community group, said the proposal was the “total opposite” of what they are hoping to achieve in the district – particularly in regards to “bringing health and wellbeing” to the community.
“We just think it’s such as natural area and we just don’t want it spoiling. There’s going to be so much disruption to wildlife, to people who want to come to the garden centres. We just don’t agree with it at all.”
Julia Duckworth, also of Dronfield 2gether, voiced concerns about the site’s location and the greenbelt’s proximity to the regional border.
“It’s that little gap between Sheffield and Derbyshire,” she added.
A spokesperson for Root-Power, which is back by Ylem Energy told ShefNews: “Development in the greenbelt is considered inappropriate unless there are very special circumstances, our view is that these circumstances exist in the case of the proposed development at Dronfield. We believe that the substantial local and national economic and environmental benefits of the proposal outweigh the low impact harm to the greenbelt.
“We understand that new energy and infrastructure developments can cause concern among local residents, however the proposed location was chosen because of its low impact on nearby sensitive receptors, situated at the urban fringe to minimize impacts of openness to the greenbelt. Furthermore we understand that Battery Energy storage projects can attract attention due to perceived fire safety risk, however we would note that our proposal is fully compliant with all relevant UK guidance and the local fire and rescue service raised no objections to the application.”
The decision of the appeal hearing is pending, after proceedings were adjourned on Thursday afternoon.