Councillors are recommended to refuse plans for a battery storage scheme on the edge of York due to safety fears.

A report prepared for next Thursday’s meeting of City of York Council’s Planning Committee also says the ‘industrial’ nature of the scheme is inappropriate for its Green Belt location.

London-based Net Zero Fourteen Ltd submitted plans to City of York Council for the scheme last autumn, concerning 3.4ha of farmland on the northern side of Murton Way, Osbaldwick.

The 100MW Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) promises to provide power for 323,795 homes for up to 2 hours.

RECOMMENDED READING:

As previously reported, the BESS compound would consist of rows of containers, which would look like shipping containers, which would house batteries, inverters and transformers that can store energy and quickly release or absorb energy from the power network.

There would be up to 104 storage units, 13 transformer units, 26 battery interface cabinets and a 240,000litre water tank. They would use Lithium battery technology.

A report by council planners said housing officials said the scheme presented a fire risk to nearby residents of a travellers site and Outgang Lane presented unsuitable access to it.

The city council’s landscape architect said adverse harm from the scheme would be ‘significant.’

Osbaldwick and Murton parish councils opposed the scheme with reasons including inappropriate development in the Green Belt,  it would harm the rural separation between Murton and Osbaldwick, would use valuable farmland, and access from Murton Way was unacceptable.

The York Travellers Trust also said the scheme would create vibration and noise for residents, harming their residential amenity and “posing a significant threat to human health and well-being.”

Council consultation also led to seven letters of objection, including from Cllr Mark Warters who ‘called in’ the application to be considered by the planning committee.

They had similar concerns, plus it ‘industrialising’ open countryside and lithium use being bad for the planet.

Eleven letters of support said the scheme would be good for the planet, would boost the use of renewable energy, bring down bills, and it would be screened.

The applicant also organised a petition using an email address which attracted 45 letters of support, but the report said this support could not be verified and did not count.

After assessing the issues, council planners gave four reasons for refusal, noting how the scheme clashed with various local and national planning policies.

They called it inappropriate development for the Green Belt, adding it did not present the very special circumstances needed for approval.

It would “extend the sense of industry associated with Osbaldwick industrial estate,” creating a “prominent encroachment into the open countryside and would be viewed as an incongruous feature in the landscape.”

The layout of the scheme has “not been demonstrated to be safe” and it would use 3.4ha “of good to moderate agricultural land,” the report also concluded.