South Derbyshire District Council Approves ‘Battery Farm’
Last week, a Derbyshire council approved the construction of a ‘battery energy farm’ that will destroy two and a half acres of woodland
The BBC inevitably latched on to it as being the best thing since sliced bread:
A battery energy farm is set to be built in Derbyshire after a planning application was approved.
South Derbyshire District Council backed a bid for a site on Park Road in Overseal at a meeting on Tuesday.
The scheme, from Care Power (Overseal) Ltd, will involve chopping down 2.5 acres of National Forest woodland next to a recently-developed holiday lodge site, with more than 50 battery shipping containers taking their place.
The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) said some residents called the decision “an utter disgrace”.
The facility will be able to store 50MW of electricity and provide power for 17,236 homes each year.
It will be connected by 7.5km of cabling to the former Drakelow power station, the LDRS said.
‘Significant benefits’
Anne Hughes, chairman of Overseal Parish Council, had told the meeting that developing the site “would be a significant loss of amenity for residents”.
“We recognise the need for battery storage facilities, but they should be sited in industrial locations, which are available in South Derbyshire, not in the heart of the National Forest,” she said.
“The elderly there [in a nearby retirement home] are fearful that their peaceful haven will be shattered by the noise, traffic and pollution.”
Jake Stentiford, agent for the applicant, said the scheme carried “significant benefits”, including the avoidance of 9,600 tonnes of carbon emissions.
“It is an excellent opportunity for the country to deliver energy and national security and protect them from external shocks, with long-term improvements for the area,” he said.
According to the LDRS, councillors had been deadlocked at six votes for and six votes against the scheme, with one, Labour’s Ian Hudson, abstaining.
Chairman Gareth Jones used his casting vote to approve the application.
He said any bid to block the development could see “costs awarded against us time and time again”.
“Refusing this would be nothing other than a temporary reprieve,” he added.
“It is very clear that if we refuse this it will go to appeal and we would lose and probably have costs awarded.
“It would be a futile gesture.”
The last few sentences are badly written, and it is unclear who the ‘He’ mentioned is. It is written as though the councillor said those words, but the comments are more like what I would expect from the LDRS.
The council seems to have no issue with the cutting down of hundreds of trees, the very trees that breathe in the Carbon Dioxide they seem so afraid of.
In my view, this shows beyond doubt they are not working to ‘save the planet’, but are promoting a political agenda that seems designed to deprive the population of reliable electricity.
See more here bbc.co.uk
Header image: Engineered Systems Magazine
About the author: Andy Rowlands is a British university graduate in space science and Principia Scientific International researcher, writer and editor who co-edited the 2019 climate science book ‘The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap‘
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Stella
| #
They know the battery ‘farms’ are prone to fires that contain toxic chemicals – this ongoing lunacy is rooted in either ignorance or evil and we know which one it is
Reply
VOWG
| #
No shortage of stupid out there.
Reply
Tony
| #
Let see the risk assessment! Does it mention the various dangers of the toxic smoke should a battery fail. What size evacuation zone will they have? It will need to be HUGE! as not only is the smoke toxic to breath, but simply smoke contact with skin is toxic too. Their liability is going to be beyond comprehension!
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
I remember that you are a PSI Editor. Instead of writing an article why haven’t you fixed obvious problems that PSI haas Relative to your article it states there is ONE comments but when I look to see who made this comment I find there are TWO comments. Clearly PSI has a problem its EDITORS are ignoring.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Hi Jerry, I just looked and saw there are six comments excluding this one, and the page says six comments. I do not control the website I am assistant editor, but I will pass your comments on to John O’Sullivan How many comments can you see now?
Reply
Jerry krause
| #
Hi PSI Editor,
PSI has a problem which not being fixed
Reply
Aaron
| #
If everywhere you go there is a problem
Guess what
Reply