A planning appeal for a large-scale battery energy storage system (BESS) in Devon has been turned down after an inspector ruled the project posed unacceptable risks to the local water environment.
Sky UK Development had sought to overturn the decision made last year by East Devon District Council, which initially rejected the proposal for a site near Raymond’s Hill in Axminster. The developer submitted revised plans to the Planning Inspectorate, aiming to address concerns regarding potential groundwater contamination and the dangers of battery fires.
Inspector RC Kirby dismissed the appeal, concluding that the proposed mitigation measures would not effectively balance the harms against the benefits. The decision notice highlighted that the development was unsuitable for its location, citing “very substantial, overriding, unacceptable risks in respect of pollution of the water environment.”
Central to the opposition was the fear that firefighting water could contaminate a nearby drinking water source if a battery unit caught fire. While the appellant argued it would take approximately eight years for such runoff to reach the water supply, the inspector found this evidence insufficient to allay safety fears.
Although Kirby acknowledged that the scheme’s benefits would outweigh the moderate harm caused to the Dorset National Landscape, she determined these advantages were insufficient to justify the environmental risks.
Campaigners from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) in Devon and the Hawkchurch and Monkton Wyld Action Group expressed relief at the outcome. Dr Phil Bratby, the CPRE Devon energy spokesperson, noted that the organization had long warned about the hazardous materials that could leach into groundwater.
Battery energy storage systems are increasingly viewed as vital tools for the UK’s transition to net zero, allowing electricity generated from renewables to be stored during periods of high production and released when demand peaks. However, this case underscores the complex tension between infrastructure needs and local environmental protection.
Eight years until contamination reaches the source? That timeline seems far too long to rely on for safety assurances.
Doesn’t this prove we need better fire suppression standards for batteries, not just blanket rejections? Innovation is stalled.
Relieved this was blocked. Protecting our drinking water must come before any energy project, no matter the promises.