This board is structured to help us:

• Gather evidence under key concern areas (e.g. fire safety, flood risk, environmental impact).

• Collaborate on objection drafting for submission to the planning authority.

• Share community feedback and ideas for public engagement.

• Store and reference key policy documents, developer materials, maps, and letters.

🔹 You are warmly invited to:

• Add useful links, documents, summaries, and quotes.

• Comment on drafts or upload new materials under the appropriate column.

• Suggest planning objections or relevant policies.

• Contribute notes from public meetings or site visits.

📅 Key Deadlines:

🧭 Please keep your posts constructive, factual, and focused. Every contribution strengthens the credibility and impact of our response.

Thank you for supporting our village.

Cllr. Paul Hitchcock
Chairman, Braybrooke Parish Council

Two large-scale Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) projects have been proposed near Braybrooke:

• Aura Power site: Located between Harborough Road and the A6, adjacent to the National Grid substation.

• Regener8 Power site: Located off Park Hill Road, on land near National Rail infrastructure and national walking routes.

Both proposals raise serious concerns relating to:

• Fire safety and toxic gas risks

• Flooding and hydrological impact

• Emergency access and response times

• Impact on public rights of way and local landscape

• Long-term environmental sustainability and waste management

📍 This Padlet board has been created to:

• Help members of the action group share evidence, questions, and documentation in an organised way.

• Support the drafting of a formal objection response by the Parish Council and community.

• Enable the community to log observations, suggest objections, and prepare materials for public awareness.

Please explore the column headings, and post relevant content in the appropriate place. This board will evolve over time, and all input is welcome and appreciated.

If you're unsure where something belongs, post it in this column and we’ll move it to the correct place.

We welcome input from everyone in the community — whether you're sharing a personal concern, specialist knowledge, or simply helping us stay organised.

Here's how you can contribute to this Padlet board:

📁 1. Posting a File or Link

• Click the ‘+’ button under the relevant column.

• Use the upload button to attach PDFs, images, Word files, or screenshots.

• Add a brief title and summary explaining what the file shows.

• You can also paste in links to websites or articles, and add comments or context.

🧠 2. Sharing Ideas or Objections

• Add a post with your observation, idea, or suggestion under the matching column (e.g. fire, flood, access).

• Begin with a short headline, then explain your point clearly.

• Include references or personal experiences if relevant.

📝 3. Commenting on Existing Posts

• Click on any post to open it.

• Use the comment box to add thoughts, further information, or polite questions.

• This helps us develop stronger and clearer planning responses together.

🧭 Not Sure Where Something Goes?

• Post it in the Introduction column, and we'll help move it to the right place.

The Parish Council emphasises that proceeding with the Regener8 (RG8) and Aura Power (AP) projects without fully addressing these recent incidents' unresolved safety and environmental concerns represents an unacceptable risk to community safety and wellbeing.

Strengthened Community Questions Specific to Thurrock and Moss Landing Incidents:

1. Lessons from Recent Incidents: "What specific lessons learned from the Thurrock and Moss Landing incidents have been directly incorporated into the design, operation, and emergency management strategies proposed for the RG8 and AP sites?"

2. Root Cause Analysis and Reporting: "Given the ongoing investigations into Thurrock and Moss Landing incidents, can the developers confirm what steps they will take to incorporate future findings and recommendations into their safety and operational protocols prior to construction commencement?"

3. Thermal Runaway and Fire Suppression Systems: "How have recent failures and limitations in fire suppression systems at Thurrock and Moss Landing influenced the selection and specification of fire safety measures proposed for RG8 and AP?"

4. Emergency Response and Toxic Emissions Management: "Considering the unresolved concerns regarding toxic emissions at recent battery fires, what advanced emergency response strategies have been developed to safeguard local residents, businesses, and emergency services personnel in Braybrooke?"

5. Delay Pending Definitive Outcomes: "Given the absence of definitive conclusions from recent critical incidents, what is the rationale for proceeding immediately with the Regener8 and Aura Power developments rather than awaiting conclusive investigation outcomes and subsequent safety guidance?"

6. Regulatory and Best Practice Updates: "How will RG8 and AP projects ensure ongoing compliance with emerging regulations and best practice guidance that will inevitably arise from detailed analyses of the Thurrock and Moss Landing incidents?"

However, the Parish Council remains concerned about the current insufficiency of clear and enforceable regulatory frameworks governing the long-term care and maintenance of SuDS infrastructure. This regulatory shortfall poses a substantial risk, potentially undermining the effectiveness and resilience of SuDS over the lifespan of developments such as the proposed Regener8 (RG8) and Aura Power (AP) Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). The Council recognises the government's intention to ensure robust adoption and ongoing maintenance but stresses that without stringent regulatory assurances, the long-term viability and environmental sustainability of these developments remain questionable.

Given the statutory role of the Environment Agency (EA) and Local Lead Flood Authorities, the Parish Council anticipates comprehensive scrutiny of flood risk management proposals, particularly addressing the adequacy and enforceability of SuDS maintenance and management arrangements.

Community Questions Specific to Attenuation Systems, SuDS Proposals, and River Impact:

1. Compliance with Updated NPPF Requirements: "Can the planner explicitly demonstrate how the proposed RG8 and AP attenuation and drainage strategies meet the recent amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework regarding mandatory use of SuDS tailored to site-specific conditions?"

2. Detailed Flood Risk Assessment: "Has a comprehensive, climate-adapted flood risk assessment, incorporating the latest Environment Agency climate change allowances, been undertaken to evaluate how effectively the proposed SuDS at RG8 and AP sites will mitigate potential flooding impacts on Braybrooke and the River Jordan catchment?"

3. Maintenance and Adoption Plans for SuDS: "Given the government’s emphasis on robust adoption and maintenance, can detailed plans for the long-term maintenance, funding, and management of the SuDS infrastructure for both developments be clearly outlined and legally secured?"

4. Collaboration with Local Authorities and Environment Agency: "What specific consultation has occurred or is planned between the project developers, North Northamptonshire Council, Leicestershire County Council, and the Environment Agency to ensure SuDS designs at RG8 and AP fully address local flood risk concerns as highlighted by MP Rosie Wrighting’s correspondence?"

5. Pollution and Water Quality Protection: "Considering the EA’s statutory consultee role outlined by MP Wrighting, what explicit pollution prevention measures are integrated into the SuDS proposals for both sites, especially regarding risks associated with toxic runoff from battery fires?"

6. SuDS Design Tailored to Local Conditions: "Given the identified rapid runoff characteristics of the local clay soils and steep slopes, can the planner confirm how the SuDS design specifically accounts for these local geological and hydrological conditions at RG8 and AP sites?"

7. Emergency Flood and Contaminant Containment: "In the event of extreme rainfall or a battery-related incident at either site, how will the SuDS and attenuation infrastructure safely contain and manage contaminated runoff, preventing any adverse impacts on the River Jordan and surrounding ecological habitats?"

The Parish Council is concerned that current water management proposals may not adequately reflect projected climate change impacts, specifically the anticipated increase in rainfall intensity and frequency over the expected 50-year lifespan of these installations. Consequently, clear evidence of robust flood risk assessments, sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), and long-term water management strategies is required.

Community Questions Specific to Flood Risk and Water Management:

1. Climate Change Projections:
   "Can the planner confirm explicitly how future climate change rainfall projections, including increased storm frequency and intensity, have been accounted for in flood risk modelling and water attenuation designs for both the RG8 and AP sites?"

2. Impact on River Jordan Flood Levels:
   "Has a detailed hydrological impact study been carried out to demonstrate conclusively that the RG8 water attenuation system will not worsen existing flood conditions downstream along the River Jordan, particularly in Braybrooke and Little Bowden?"

3. Groundwater Management at AP Site:
   "Given recent Environment Agency flood risk data predicting increased groundwater levels near the AP site, what specific groundwater mitigation and management strategies are proposed to ensure long-term resilience and prevent site flooding?"

4. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS):
   "Could the planner clarify the type and scale of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) planned for both sites and how these will effectively manage surface water runoff in alignment with North Northamptonshire’s flood risk management policies?"

5. Monitoring and Maintenance:
   "What arrangements are proposed for long-term monitoring, maintenance, and management of the proposed water attenuation systems and drainage infrastructure, particularly in response to extreme weather events?"

6. Sequential Flood Risk Assessment:
   "Has a sequential flood risk assessment, considering alternative locations with potentially lower flood risk, been conducted by North Northamptonshire’s Joint Core Strategy Policy 5 (Water Environment, Resources & Flood Risk Management)? Could the results be made available to the Parish Council?"

7. Emergency Planning for Flood Events:
   "In the event of flooding at either site, could the planner clarify what specific emergency response measures have been outlined, particularly given the limited access to emergency services?"

The Parish Council seeks clarity on how developers propose to manage and mitigate potential adverse impacts on dark sky conditions, ensuring compliance with best-practice guidelines and local policies protecting dark sky environments.

Strengthened Community Questions Specific to Dark Skies Impact:

1. Detailed Lighting Impact Assessment: "Has a detailed lighting impact assessment been conducted for both RG8 and AP sites to quantify potential impacts on local dark skies, particularly considering proximity to residential areas, sensitive wildlife habitats, and the Travellers Site?"

2. Mitigation and Management Measures: "What specific mitigation measures will be implemented to minimise operational and security lighting impacts on dark skies, including types of lighting, shielding, brightness control, and automated operation?"

3. Alignment with Local Dark Skies Policies: "How do the lighting proposals for RG8 and AP developments align explicitly with North Northamptonshire and Braybrooke Parish policies aimed at protecting local dark sky conditions?"

4. Continuous Lighting Monitoring: "What measures are planned for ongoing monitoring of lighting impacts throughout the operational life of the BESS installations to ensure long-term compliance with dark sky protection guidelines?"

5. Cumulative Lighting Impacts: "Have cumulative lighting impacts been assessed, considering existing sources of artificial lighting in the vicinity, and how will the proposed developments ensure minimal additional impact on the area's overall dark sky quality?"

6. Community Engagement on Lighting: "How will local residents and businesses be consulted on lighting plans and ongoing management strategies to ensure community concerns about dark skies are adequately addressed and incorporated?"

Braybrooke Parish Council holds substantial concerns regarding the ethical disposal and recycling of lithium-ion batteries associated with the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) projects. The lifecycle management of batteries, from production through to decommissioning and disposal, raises critical ethical and environmental considerations. There are significant apprehensions that inadequate recycling measures could lead to environmental contamination, unethical disposal practices, or illegal dumping, potentially harming both local and broader ecosystems.

Given the complexity and resource-intensive nature of recycling lithium-ion batteries, the Parish Council emphasises the necessity for stringent recycling processes, accountability in waste management, and full transparency to safeguard community and environmental health.

Community Questions Specific to Battery Recycling:

Battery Lifecycle Management: "Can the developer provide comprehensive details regarding the complete lifecycle management plan for the lithium-ion batteries used, explicitly including recycling, disposal, and any potential reuse strategies?"

Ethical Waste Disposal Assurances: "What concrete assurances can the developer offer that lithium-ion battery waste will be ethically and responsibly disposed of, adhering to internationally recognized environmental and safety standards?"

Recycling Capacity and Facilities: "Does the developer have confirmed arrangements with established and reputable recycling facilities capable of handling lithium-ion battery waste safely, and can documentation verifying these arrangements be provided?"

Transparency and Accountability: "What ongoing transparency measures and independent oversight mechanisms will be implemented to ensure that the recycling and disposal processes remain ethical, safe, and compliant throughout the operational lifespan and beyond?"

Contamination Prevention Measures: "What specific measures and emergency response plans have been developed to prevent or mitigate environmental contamination or public health risks resulting from battery leakage or improper disposal practices?"

Long-Term Financial and Environmental Responsibility: "What long-term financial guarantees or insurance measures will be secured to ensure that future recycling and disposal obligations can be met fully, without placing undue burdens on local communities or public finances?"

Braybrooke Parish Council expresses significant concern regarding the long-term viability and future-proofing of the proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) projects over the proposed 50-year lifespan, after which sites are intended to be decommissioned and returned to greenfield status. Technological advancements in renewable energy, evolving energy storage solutions, and shifts in national and global energy policy may potentially render current BESS installations obsolete within this timeframe.

The Parish Council highlights the importance of considering likely developments such as advancements in hydrogen storage, improved grid infrastructure, alternative renewable storage methods, and energy efficiency technologies that could negate the necessity for large-scale BESS developments, thereby potentially making the current proposals redundant or economically unviable.

Community Questions Specific to Future-Proofing:

Technological Obsolescence: "What analysis has been conducted to assess the risk of technological obsolescence for the proposed BESS installations, and how adaptable is the current design to future technological innovations in energy storage?"

Alternative Green Energy Developments: "Has the developer considered the potential impact of advances in alternative green energy technologies, such as hydrogen storage or other innovative energy storage solutions, which could negate the requirement for battery-based storage within the project's operational lifetime?"

Infrastructure Flexibility: "What flexibility is incorporated within the project's design and infrastructure to adapt to changing national and international energy policies, grid improvements, and potential shifts towards more sustainable or efficient energy storage technologies?"

Economic Viability: "Can the developer provide detailed economic projections or scenario analyses demonstrating the continued viability of the BESS site throughout the full 50-year period, taking into account potential technological advancements and shifts in energy policy?"

Decommissioning and Greenfield Restoration: "What robust provisions and financial guarantees have been made to ensure full decommissioning, safe disposal or recycling of batteries, and restoration of the site to genuine greenfield status should the facility become redundant or obsolete before the 50-year timeframe concludes?"

Policy Alignment and Adaptability: "How will the proposed BESS projects maintain compatibility with evolving local, national, and global planning and environmental policies, ensuring that the development remains beneficial and appropriate throughout its operational lifespan?"

A. Operational Noise and Visitor Experience

1. Can Regener8 provide the full noise impact assessment (including low-frequency and tonal noise) for the proposed BESS's daytime and nighttime operation, as measured at the property boundary of The Plant Man nursery?

   • Has this assessment considered the unique quiet rural baseline and customer sensitivity to background disturbance?

2. What modelling or research has been conducted to assess the impact of persistent mechanical and electrical noise (e.g., cooling fans, transformers, inverters) on businesses dependent on a peaceful environment and customer experience, such as garden centres or rural retreats?

3. What noise mitigation technologies (e.g., acoustic barriers, liquid cooling systems, orientation of noisy infrastructure) will be employed nearest The Plant Man site?

B. Visual and Landscape Impact

4. Has a zone of visual influence (ZVI) study been conducted to determine the visual impact of solar panel arrays, fencing, containerised batteries, and lighting on views from The Plant Man’s entrance and garden display areas?

   • If so, please provide this documentation in full.

5. What is the proposed height and finish (e.g., colour, reflectivity) of all equipment visible from Park Hill Road, and what landscaping or screening measures are proposed to mitigate their presence along this stretch of rural lane?

6. Will Regener8 commit to a legally binding landscape buffer that preserves the character and setting of rural-facing businesses for the lifetime of the development (i.e., 40+ years)?

C. Traffic and Accessibility

7. What is the estimated volume and timing of HGV and construction vehicle movements along Park Hill Road, and what modelling has been undertaken to assess the disruption to visitor access to The Plant Man nursery during the construction phase?

8. Has Regener8 modelled the impact of HGV use on the structural condition of Park Hill Road and its suitability for dual use as both a business access route and construction haulage route? If so, what are the repair and restoration guarantees post-construction?

9. Will Regener8 agree to restrict heavy vehicle access during business hours (e.g., 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.) to minimise interference with customer flow and nursery operations?

D. Business Impact and Policy Conflicts

10. What assessments have Regener8 conducted into the socio-economic impact of the development on local rural businesses, particularly those whose value depends on tourism, landscape setting, or a quiet ambience?

11. In light of Policy 25 of the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy, how does Regener8 justify a development that may materially undermine the viability of a permitted, lawful rural enterprise such as The Plant Man?

12. What mechanisms of redress or compensation will be offered should measurable visitor decline or operational disruption result from the construction or operation of this development?

E. Public Engagement and Alternatives

13. Was the proprietor of The Plant Man or any other Park Hill Road business formally consulted during the site selection process, and if not, why was this not undertaken as part of good-faith community engagement?

14. Did Regener8 assess less sensitive alternative sites (e.g., brownfield land or areas further from commercial receptors), and what specific criteria led to this location being chosen over those alternatives?

Community Concern Levels

• Average Concern (Aura Power BESS Proposal): 7.9 out of 10

• Average Concern (Regener8 Solar and BESS Proposal): 8.5 out of 10

Community Consultation Feedback

• Feel Inadequately Consulted: 29 respondents

• Feel Adequately Consulted: 5 respondents

Support for Formal Objections

• Aura Power Proposal:

  • Support formal objections: 30 respondents

  • Against formal objections: 3 respondents

  • Prefer not to say: 1 respondent

• Regener8 Proposal:

  • Support formal objections: 33 respondents

  • Against formal objections: 1 respondent

Interest in Joining Action Group

• No: 13 respondents

• Maybe: 10 respondents

• Yes: 9 respondents

Main Concerns Identified

The top concerns highlighted by the community include:

• Visual Impact on Countryside (4 mentions)

• Fire Safety (4 mentions)

• Environmental damage and wildlife disruption (4 mentions)

• Flooding Risk (4 mentions)

• Noise and Lighting (3 mentions)

• Broader concerns encompassing multiple issues (several individual mentions)

This report underscores significant community concerns, notably regarding environmental impacts, safety, and the adequacy of consultation processes. It reflects strong community backing for formal objections against both BESS projects.

The Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) proposals near Braybrooke, submitted by Aura Power and Regener8 Power, are fundamentally incompatible with several adopted planning documents which guide development in this area. These include the Braybrooke Neighbourhood Plan (BNP), the North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS), and the Kettering Site Specific Part 2 Local Plan (SSP2). The conflicts are material and significant, as outlined below:

🏘️ 1. Braybrooke Neighbourhood Plan (BNP) [2021]

BNP Policy ENV13 – Landscape Character and Views

• The proposals would industrialise currently open and tranquil countryside, harming Braybrooke's visual setting and obstructing identified important views.

• Conflict: The proposed developments are located within designated ‘important views’ corridors (e.g., looking north from Braybrooke Village and south from the Jurassic Way), contrary to ENV13.

BNP Policy ENV14 – Tranquillity, Dark Skies and Valued Environments

• The scale and operation of the BESS, including lighting, noise from cooling systems, and security fencing, conflict to maintain local tranquillity and dark skies.

• Conflict: The sites would introduce industrial noise and light into a previously tranquil area, breaching ENV14’s protection of quiet rural environments.

BNP Policy ENV9 – Flood Risk Management

• Development must demonstrate that it will not increase runoff or reduce the area’s ability to manage floodwaters.

• Conflict: Proposals rely on attenuation into the River Jordan catchment despite already observed flood events in Braybrooke and downstream in Little Bowden.

🌿 2. North Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) [2011–2031]

JCS Policy 3 – Landscape Character

• Development must protect and enhance the distinctive character of the landscape and safeguard essential views.

• Conflict: The massing and industrial nature of the BESS proposals undermine the character of the undulating agricultural setting of Braybrooke and directly affect protected views under both JCS and BNP policies. Braybrooke's undulating, agricultural setting Flood Risk Management

• Proposals must manage surface water sustainably and avoid development that would exacerbate flood risk elsewhere.

• Conflict: Flood attenuation schemes risk accelerating peak flow into the River Jordan, contrary to Policy 5, and raise concerns regarding hazardous run-off in the event of fire suppression.

JCS Policy 8(d) – Place Shaping Principles: Amenity and Quality of Life

• New development must not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties or compromise the quiet enjoyment of rural areas.

• Conflict: Aura and Regener8 BESS proposals would result in unacceptable levels of visual intrusion, operational noise, and light pollution, particularly near national walking trails and quiet lanes.

JCS Policy 26 – Renewable Energy

• While supportive of renewable energy, the policy emphasises that schemes must be compatible with landscape character, biodiversity, and residential amenity.

• Conflict: The BESS is not a renewable energy generator and fails to comply with the location sensitivity tests embedded in Policy 26.

• Notably, the JCS stresses using previously developed or lower-quality land, which has not been demonstrated in either proposal.

📍 3. Kettering Site Specific Part 2 Local Plan (SSP2) [Adopted December 2021]

SSP2 Policy RA5 – Development in the Countryside

• Development outside village boundaries must be appropriate to a rural setting, such as agriculture, rural enterprises, or infrastructure justified by exceptional need.

• Conflict: BESS is a large-scale industrial facility that is unjustified in this open countryside location and not aligned with the types of development supported under RA5.

SSP2 Policy ENV10 – Biodiversity and Geodiversity

• Proposals must demonstrate clear net gains in biodiversity and protect locally essential habitats.

• Conflict: Biodiversity Net Gain calculations are based on a low ecological baseline, which may result from historical agricultural degradation. This undermines the fairness and accuracy of the developer’s net gain claims.

SSP2 Policy ENV5 – Pollution and Land Instability

• Developments must demonstrate how they will mitigate potential pollution risks, including those from noise, dust, and hazardous substances.

• Conflict: BESS proposals do not provide a sufficient toxic gas management plan, and hydrofluoric acid emissions remain a critical, unaddressed issue. Firewater runoff is also not addressed per SSP2 expectations.

⚖️ Conclusion

The current BESS proposals:

• Do not align with the vision, scale, or character of Braybrooke Parish.

• Breach multiple, clear, enforceable policies in the BNP, JCS, and SSP2.

• Fail to meet acceptable thresholds for location, design, flood safety, community integration, and environmental impact.

Noise from battery cooling systems, electrical transformers, maintenance activities, and increased traffic is anticipated to pose a continuous or intermittent disturbance. The Parish Council emphasises the need for stringent adherence to noise regulations and clear evidence that noise management strategies are sufficient to prevent negative impacts on local residents and businesses.

Strengthened Community Questions Specific to Noise Impact:

1. Baseline Noise Assessment: "Has a detailed baseline noise assessment been conducted at sensitive receptors including Park Hill Farm, 'The Plant Man' business, and the Travellers Site, to accurately measure existing ambient noise levels and inform effective noise mitigation strategies?"

2. Noise Mitigation Measures: "What specific, evidence-based noise mitigation measures are proposed to ensure that operational noise levels from battery cooling units, transformers, and maintenance activities will remain within acceptable thresholds for nearby residents and businesses?"

3. Construction Phase Noise Controls: "Can the planner detail the specific controls and limitations on construction-related noise, particularly vehicle movements and heavy machinery operations, designed to minimise disturbances to Park Hill Farm, the Travellers Site, and 'The Plant Man' during construction?"

4. Continuous Monitoring and Compliance: "What ongoing noise monitoring arrangements will be implemented to ensure continuous compliance with regulatory noise standards, and how will exceedances be addressed promptly?"

5. Communication and Complaint Procedures: "What clear procedures will be put in place to ensure effective communication with affected residents and businesses about noise levels, including a responsive complaint-handling mechanism during construction and operational phases?"

6. Cumulative Noise Impact Assessment: "Has an assessment of cumulative noise impacts, considering both RG8 operations and existing background noise from nearby infrastructure and traffic, been carried out, and how are cumulative impacts mitigated?"

Braybrooke Parish Council has significant concerns regarding the ethical and sustainable sourcing of materials for Regener8 Power (RG8) and Aura Power (AP) 's proposed battery energy storage systems (BESS). The extraction and processing of essential battery components, including lithium, cobalt, nickel, and other rare minerals, present serious ethical, environmental, and social implications.

The Parish Council is particularly concerned about issues such as potential human rights violations, child labour practices, unsafe working conditions, and severe environmental impacts commonly associated with the mining and processing of these materials. Transparency and accountability within the supply chains for battery materials are essential to maintaining the integrity and sustainability of the proposed developments.

Community Questions Specific to Ethical Sourcing:

Ethical Supply Chain Verification: "Can the developer provide detailed documentation demonstrating an independently verified ethical sourcing process for all battery materials, ensuring adherence to international human rights and environmental standards?"

Transparency in Material Sourcing: "What steps have been taken to ensure transparency in the battery material supply chain, and can evidence of compliance with ethical sourcing standards, such as the Responsible Minerals Initiative (RMI) or equivalent certifications, be provided?"

Child Labour and Working Conditions: "How will the developer guarantee that materials used within the BESS developments are free from child labour, forced labour, and other exploitative practices, and what auditing measures will be implemented to enforce this?"

Environmental Impact Management: "Can the developer detail specific measures implemented to mitigate environmental harm associated with the extraction and processing of battery materials, including strategies to reduce pollution, manage waste responsibly, and rehabilitate mining areas?"

Supply Chain Auditing: "What independent auditing and ongoing monitoring processes will be established to verify ethical sourcing compliance continually, and how will any non-compliance issues identified through audits be addressed?"

Local and Global Accountability: "How does the developer intend to publicly communicate ongoing efforts and progress towards ethical and sustainable sourcing practices, thereby ensuring both local accountability and global corporate responsibility?"

27 January 2025

January 2025 - Author - Dr. Hugo N. Hammersley

Why BESS sites are no longer needed in Feckenham to meet the Governments targets..... 

Summary of Collated Data extracted from Oct 2024 REPD for East & West Midlands areas showing all Stand-Alone Battery Storage (BESS) Facilities with a Capacity of 10MW or more.

We have performed a detailed statistical analysis of the latest government data (UK Government Renewable Energy Planning Database) relating to Battery Storage (BESS) facilities in the East and West Midlands, according to planning status. The results are shown graphically below:

Further analysis of this data indicates the following essential details, shown in the four tables below. We have compared these statistics to the UK Midlands Regional BESS targets published in the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan Documentation published on December 13, 2024.

· Thus, the sum of total BESS Capacity in Oct 2024 in the UK East & West Midlands, which is operational, under construction, or with existing planning consent totals 5,803MW. 

· There is a further 4,291MW of BESS facilities for which planning applications have already been submitted and are awaiting a decision.

· The total BESS “Queue” for the UK Midlands area is now 10,094MW.

The Regional 2030 and 2035 Battery Storage Targets have recently been defined in the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan written by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) in Dec 2024, as follows:

Comparing the statistics in Table 1 with Tables 2 and 3 shows conclusively that BESS facilities that are Operational, Under Construction, or with existing Planning Permission (including Revised Permissions) awaiting construction totals 5,803MW, far exceeding the 2030 and 2035 targets of 4,300MW and 4,900MW, respectively. The 2030 target has already been exceeded by 135%, and the 2035 target by 118%. All that needs to happen is for the consented sites to be built, and no more planning consents are required from now on.

In addition, an additional 4,291MW of BESS planning applications have already been submitted to the relevant planning authorities in this same Midlands geographical area.

Conclusion

The BESS marketplace is very clearly already completely saturated, and no more planning consents are needed anywhere in the Midlands to achieve the Government’s December 2024, stated 2030 and 2035 aspirations. 

This means that, from now on, NO developer should be able to claim “Very Special Circumstances” to justify breaking Statutory Green Belt Protections anywhere in the UK Midlands area. This includes all current and future BESS planning applications in Feckenham.

References:

Renewable Energy Planning Database October 2024 (UK Government DESNZ)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673b215249ce28002166a93e/repd-q3-oct-2024.csv/preview

Clean Power 2030 Action Plan (UK Government DESNZ)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-power-2030-action-plan  

Why the Midlands has already Exceeded its 2030 

1. Importance and Risks:

   • LiB systems are essential for renewable energy storage but pose substantial risks, primarily due to their inherent instability and potential for catastrophic thermal runaway incidents, leading to explosions, fires, and toxic emissions.

2. Safety and Regulatory Concerns:

   • No clear or adequate legislation currently governs the installation, operation, or decommissioning of LiBs in the UK.

   • A lack of British Standards or specific regulations means critical safety features and engineering specifications vary significantly across installations.

   • There is no restriction on using second-life batteries, which present greater unknown risks due to potential previous damage.

   • The Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) regulations are suggested as appropriate governance for LiBs but are not currently applied.

3. Environmental and Health Hazards:

   • LiB incidents can result in severe environmental damage from prolonged fires, toxic emissions, and contaminated firewater run-off.

   • The toxic compounds released (fluorinated compounds) can persist in the environment for decades, impacting aquifers, agriculture, and local ecosystems adversely.

4. Recommendations for Immediate Action:

   • Urgent implementation of specific safety regulations and preventative measures by government agencies is critical.

   • Introduction of moratoriums, as implemented in other jurisdictions, should be considered until suitable safety standards and regulations are in place.

This summary underscores the need for cautious evaluation and comprehensive risk assessment of any proposed LiB installations within the parish, ensuring the community's safety and environmental integrity.

Dear Chloe,

Braybrooke Parish Council has thoroughly reviewed the proposal for the construction of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) near Braybrooke, adjacent to a main railway line. Given the considerable safety, environmental, and community concerns that such installations raise, the Council seeks clarity and assurance on several critical points outlined below:

Safety Risks and Historical Incidents

1. Following recent incidents, including the significant BESS fire at Thurrock in February 2025, what specific design, technological improvements, and operational strategies will be employed to prevent similar thermal runaway events?

2. Given the risk of toxic gas emissions, including potentially lethal hydrofluoric acid fumes from lithium-ion battery fires, what specific gas detection, ventilation, and emergency response systems will be integrated into the proposed site?

3. Considering Thurrock and other international incidents, can you confirm whether the BESS will use automated fire detection, alarm systems linked directly to emergency services, and adequate on-site water resources or other suppression methods to manage battery fires effectively?

Emergency Preparedness & Railway Proximity Concerns:

4. Please provide detailed information regarding emergency response times anticipated for the Braybrooke location, particularly given its proximity to the railway. Has Network Rail been formally consulted regarding the potential impact of a fire or other emergencies on rail infrastructure and services?

5. What mitigation strategies have been developed to manage the risks of thermal runaway incidents, especially given the known challenge of prolonged battery fires and re-ignition, as seen in Moss Landing, Thurrock, and similar incidents globally?

6. Please specify what provisions are included to guarantee rapid emergency access and firefighting water availability, ensuring uninterrupted response capability, especially considering potential access limitations the railway line poses.

7. Can you provide evidence that the BESS design complies explicitly with the latest regulatory frameworks and guidelines from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC), Network Rail, and the Environment Agency?

8. Are comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) being prepared, particularly addressing the environmental implications of hazardous material runoff from firefighting activities?

9. What public consultation processes are planned, and how will Aura Power engage transparently and meaningfully with Braybrooke residents regarding safety, emergency planning, and community impact?

Given the significant consequences observed internationally and domestically in BESS incidents, it is key that robust safety measures, transparent engagement with local stakeholders, and rigorous adherence to best practice are mandatory.

We look forward to your detailed responses to these critical issues, which will inform the Council’s formal position regarding the proposed BESS installation. To facilitate informed and constructive discussions, we kindly request detailed responses to these points by the forthcoming on-site meeting.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr. Paul Hitchcock
Chairman, Braybrooke Parish Council