PLANS to construct a new battery storage facility near Nursling have been approved by civic chiefs - despite 25 obections.
The application, submitted to Test Valley Borough Council, was submitted by Ecotricity Generation Ltd, and will see the facility built on land in Butts Field, Mill Lane.
Around 20 people were at the southern area planning committee on Tuesday to show their opposition to the plan.
The facility will consist of 48 battery storage units, 24 inverter/transformer units, a substation, auxiliary transformers, control rooms and other auxiliary infrastructure, enclosed by palisade and acoustic fencing. The proposal also included the formation of hardstanding and internal access tracks, as well as landscaping and biodiversity enhancements.
The plans were approved by the committee. There were 25 objections and one letter of support.
READ MORE: Residents call for rear dormer plan to go back to planning committee
Speaking in objection, Cllr Phil Lomax, of Nursling and Rownhams Parish Council, raised concerns about the stability of building on the site, as well as the potential for contamination from the facility.
He said: “The potential for landfill gas, contaminated materials including asbestos, and land instability – it is quite a list. And lest we forget, this is a former landfill site. The report went on to say that it recommends the further investigation of these potential risks with a geo-technical survey to see if the land can support all these heavy batteries. However, no such ground investigations have been undertaken to explore such risks.
“The committee is being asked to approve a development on land where there is a very high risk of contamination, which if disturbed is likely to mobilise pollutants into surface water and ground water, it is unstable so there is a high risk of anything built on it collapsing, and it may be releasing explosive landfall gas.”
He continued: “The application site overlaps with an active drinking water protected area. Imagine the consequences of toxic chemicals getting into the drinking water supplies.”
Cllr Lomax also said there had been no information released about where the potentially contaminated materials dug up during the construction of the storage facility will go.
Martin Clayton, of Station Road, also objected on behalf of residents, saying: “We feel this is not in keeping with the local area, this is a rural site.”
He continued: “It feels like a poor design, and it feels like it does not fit within planning guidelines. For example, the four-metre high acoustic fence is going to have a major impact on both within the summer months, when there are leaves on the trees, and in the winter months when the leaves have fallen off.”
READ NEXT: Letter: 'Why bother to hold a meeting at all'
Cllr Terese Swain, borough councillor for Chilworth, Nursling and Rownhams, also objected, pointing out that the planning committee had approved plans for more than 100 battery storage units in the Nursling area, with only approximately 25 units having actually been built.
Nick Whittington, agent for the application, said: “The facility has been deliberately located in the corner of the site, over 100 metres away from the properties in Mill Lane. We would also be undertaking tree and hedgerow planting. Properties will screened from the site with the planting, and we will work with officers to ensure that suitable species are selected for planting to ensure year-round screening.
“The landscape officer has confirmed that there are no landscape qualities on the site which are highly preservable. Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service were consulted before and during the planning application, and we have responded to their comments. They have raised no objections to the application.”
Cllr Philip Bundy said that he would be abstaining from voting on the application. He said: “I don’t like the fact that we’ve had a huge number of these applications – as we’ve heard, we’ve had applications for 157 units, and only 25 have been built. It seems an overkill, an unnecessary concentration of these activities in that area for no real true reason.
“If only 25 have been built, it only proves that they are not as essential as people say they are.
“I will abstain because I don’t like it for a number of reasons, but I will allow my colleagues to take the decision.”
SEE ALSO: Delays to £800,000 scheme to refurbish Hampshire theatre
Cllr John Parker said he would be supporting the application, saying: “Listening to the presentation and the speakers, the three things which leaps out at me are three issues: drainage, contamination and the potential for instability. I note that these have all been addressed by conditions.
“My feeling is, as we assess the planning balance, is that there are a number of potential harms, but they are being picked off by conditions. There is a benefit to having such a development, as it moves towards a greener economy.
“With this debate about ‘Is it essential in the countryside’, I would turn that around and ask, where else could you put it?”
The committee voted to approve the plans, with nine members voting in favour of the application, and two abstentions.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here