Lower Penn Parish Council objection to planning application 24/01102/FULM
The temporary development of a battery energy storage system (BESS) with ancillary infrastructure to provide balancing services to the electricity grid - Land at Lower Penn, Wolverhampton
The following response could be included in any further representations made on the above planning application by Lower Penn Parish Council. Any additional representations should make clear that these are read in conjunction with the previous Parish Council Representation dated 24th February 2025.
Greenbelt
The application site is entirely over washed by Green Belt. National Planning Policy Framework, December 2024 (framework) makes clear in paragraph 142 that:
“The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.”
Clearly the proposed scheme would directly and negatively impact the openness of the Green Belt and constitutes sprawl into the open countryside.
Paragraph 143 of the framework sets the five purposes of Green Belt. These are:
“a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.”
The adopted and emerging Local Plan’s both retain the green belt entirely in this location.
There is no justification to depart from national or local plan policy to support the proposed development that would have a negative impact on the openness of the Green Belt. It is contrary to national and adopted and emerging local plan policy in all aspects.
Furthermore, the submission ‘Planning, Design and Access Statement’ fails to justify the proposed development or take account of the South Staffordshire District Council, South Staffordshire Green Belt Study, July 2019.
As the mapping data shows, the entire application site is considered to make a ‘strong’ contribution to purposes A and C of the five purposes of Green Belt. By virtue that the application site is also previously undeveloped land it would fail to meet criteria E which seeks to focus development in a ‘brownfield’ first approach.
The following table demonstrates how the Local Planning Authority have rated the application site in the assessment.
Purpose Score
A: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas. Strong (the highest score)
B: to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another Weak
C: seeks to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Strong (the highest score)
D: preserve the setting and special character of
historic towns. Weak
E: to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. No assessment in the report. However as previously undeveloped land the application fails to take account of a ‘brownfield’ first approach.
It should also be noted that the site also fails to meet the criteria of ‘Grey Belt’ which is defined in the framework as:
“For the purposes of plan-making and decision-making, ‘grey belt’ is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143.”
As the table above makes clear the application site strongly meets the criteria of A and is not previously developed land, it is grade 2 and 3a agricultural land. Therefore it fails to meet the criteria of grey belt as defined in the NPPF December 2024.
Furthermore, the applicant has not undertaken a brownfield assessment to demonstrate that there are no suitable alternative sites in proximity, undermining further the viability of vacant, derelict, brownfield sites by developing previously undeveloped greenfield land.
The applicant’s supporting ‘Agricultural Land Classification’ report, November 2024 concludes that the application site is a mixture of grades 2 and 3a. These are considered ‘best and most versatile’. Emerging Local Plan policy ‘NB5: Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Generation’ states that such applications must conform with this and other local plan policies (in this case, green belt), and demonstrate that:
“a) The use of agricultural land is necessary and no alternative available and suitable previously developed site within the district can accommodate a scheme of similar scale. The area of search considered should have regard to a viable connection (in distance) to the National Grid;
b) If (a) is satisfied but the scheme is on Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, that there are no alternative sites on lower grade agricultural land that could accommodate the scheme; and
c) That the proposal has considered opportunities for continued agricultural use (where feasible) and will maximise biodiversity benefits around arrays.”
The application fails to meet these criteria and is therefore contrary to the emerging local plan policy NB5. The allow this development would undermine the emerging local plan policy and set a dangerous precedent.
Ecological Appraisal
The ‘Preliminary Ecological Appraisal’ is not robust to support the reported potential impacts of the development. Firstly, the survey was undertaken well outside of the peak season for this work in early December 2024 and has not been prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist.
Therefore, we respectfully request that updated survey data is undertaken at a suitable survey period to accurately record and reflect the current ecological value of the site. Particularly as this is ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land as demonstrated by the applicant, adjacent to Local Nature Reserves.
Noise Assessment
As part of the application submission a ‘Noise Impact Assessment’ was submitted dated December 2024. This has been updated with a ‘Technical Note’, dated 19th May 2025.
Noise and amenity are material planning considerations. The impact on the health and well-being of parishioners is a priority for Lower Penn Parish Council. As such we have invested in an independent review by a suitable qualified professional for this aspect of the technical submission to clearly understand any potential areas of concern.
In summary the applicant demonstrates the proposed development would have a detrimental impact in terms of acoustics and noise in the immediate and surrounding area where local residents live.
Any proposed mitigation does not sufficiently address these concerns. We appreciate the technical nature of this reason for refusal and refer you to the attached supporting statement that provides our rationale and clear justification.
A summary of the key findings/recommendations are included below:
• Insufficient and inadequate information to allow the noise impacts to be assessed.
• The reporting requirements of BS 4142 have not been fulfilled.
• The Noise Impact Assessment purports to account for worst-case scenarios in terms of noise levels, however it has not included or considered tonal noise components and potential for low frequency noise impacts. The data as applied lacks granularity for this purpose.
• The Project designers have not provided specific information in on the Transformer/Substation, therefore data has been adopted by Hepworth Acoustics for configuration of a ‘similarly rated transformer from another very similar scheme’. It cannot be verified if the data used is accurate or representative.
Noise Impact Assessment Review
1. Overview:
Hepworth Acoustics Ltd. prepared a Noise Impact Assessment (NIA) for REPD Ltd.’s proposed temporary BESS comprising 44 Energy Storage Containers, 22 Power Inverters, and one 132kV Transformer/Substation. The review identifies significant shortcomings in methodology, assumptions, and interpretation of standards used to justify the proposal.
2. Standards and Methodology
• BS 4142:2014+A1:2019 (industrial/commercial sound) and BS 8233:2014 (internal noise design) are cited.
• Misapplication: BS 8233 is not intended for assessing new external noise impacts on existing dwellings; it applies to the design of new buildings.
• Consequently, internal noise predictions based on a 15 dB window attenuation and BS 8233 limits are unsound.
3. Baseline Survey
• Conducted over 48 hours (2–4 Dec 2024) during weekday working hours only.
• Ongoing nearby works (sewage works, temporary traffic management) introduced uncertainty and atypical noise conditions.
• No weekend or extended monitoring undertaken, contrary to BS 4142 best practice.
• Environmental Health (EHO) agrees the baseline data are insufficient.
4. Predicted Noise Emissions
• Plant specifications are not finalised; key equipment data are based on “similar schemes” or estimated “suitable values”.
• No spectral or low-frequency data provided; tonal emissions not quantified.
• Hepworth claim “worst-case” assumptions—this is unsubstantiated.
• WHO guidance indicates low-frequency noise can cause health effects and sleep disturbance at low levels; this aspect is ignored.
5. Assessment and Results
• Tonal and intermittent penalties required under BS 4142 are not properly applied.
• A nominal +3 dB correction was used, though up to +6 dB may be warranted for tonal components.
• The NIA incorrectly states that noise is below background levels; data show +5 dB exceedance at Langley Lodge (an adverse impact).
• Internal noise levels derived from invalid assumptions (BS 8233, 15 dB window loss).
• Contextual factors (night-time sensitivity, rural tranquillity) are inadequately addressed.
6. Council Environmental Health Comments
• Confirms the NIA fails to comply with BS 4142 Section 12 reporting requirements.
• Background monitoring inadequate; source data unverifiable.
• Refusal recommended due to insufficient information and potential underestimation of noise impacts.
7. Technical Note (Hepworth, May 2025)
• Attempts to justify BS 8233 use but concedes it is outside scope.
• Admits plant models/data withheld due to NDAs and that final selections will differ, confirming fundamental uncertainty.
• Accepts a future re-assessment will be required once equipment is known.
8. Policy and Planning Context
The proposal conflicts with NPPF noise and amenity policies:
• Fails to demonstrate protection of health, quality of life, and rural character.
• Does not ensure appropriate development for its location or effective mitigation.
• Seeks permission for a scheme not properly quantified or evidenced.
9. Summary of Key Concerns
1. Inadequate and unreliable baseline data.
2. Unverified, estimated source noise levels.
3. Misuse of BS 8233; omission of tonal/low-frequency components.
4. Failure to demonstrate a true “worst-case” scenario.
5. Significant uncertainty inherent throughout assessment.
6. EHO recommends refusal on noise grounds.
10. Conclusion
The Noise Impact Assessment does not provide a robust or policy-compliant basis for determining noise impacts of the proposed BESS.
Given the extent of uncertainty and methodological flaws, planning permission should be refused or, at minimum, deferred pending submission of a comprehensive, evidence-based acoustic assessment using verified plant data and full consideration of low-frequency and tonal characteristics.
The independent assessment of the submission documents clearly demonstrates the proposed development is contrary to Paragraph 198, clause a of the framework which states:
“Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, living conditions and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development. In doing so they should:
a) mitigate and reduce to a minimum potential adverse impacts resulting from noise from new development – and avoid noise giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and the quality of life72;”
Conclusion
This application would set a dangerous precedent that would directly undermine emerging Local Plan policy specifically related to BESS applications and national and local plan policy relating to Green Belt and health and well-being of residents in terms of unacceptable impacts from noise pollution.
The application constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt on ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land and would cause harm to neighbour amenity of residents by virtue of the noise and acoustic issues created by the proposed scheme. Therefore, we strongly recommend that the application be refused based on the material considerations included in this and previous representations by Lower Penn Parish Council.