Statera Battery Storage - East Claydon

Below are points of concern raised in the first phase of the proposals.

Traffic and Transport

• During construction, the number of daily two-way construction vehicle movements associated with the application site is estimated to be 21,500 vehicle movements - approximately half (10,750) will be HGV’s coming from Buckingham through Padbury and into Winslow. These volumes of traffic will continue for at least 18 months and expose the residents to continuous daily noise and air pollution and safety risks to pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Such large traffic volumes will require traffic management systems which will inevitably cause delays and disturbance that will have a negative effect on the daily lives of residents.
• The construction will cause damage and disruption by intensive, heavy traffic to country and village roads. They will enter Winslow from the Padbury side, down the High Street turning right onto Vicarage Road, left onto Burley’s Road and continuing down the hill onto Granborough Road before exiting Winslow.
• In addition, there will be “Abnormal Indivisible Loads” (AILs) for which street furniture in Winslow will need to be taken down as these loads are so wide and heavy.
• There would be a significant risk to public safety for the residents of Winslow and Granborough. HGV’s will need to go through Winslow’s residential roads where there is already on-street parking. The roads are not suitable to accommodate HGV’s.
• Routing through Granborough via the old bridge is not designed for HGV traffic and will pose a very significant danger.  Horse lovers use these roads regularly and this would pose a danger for them.
• Additionally, should the main construction route be blocked ‘for whatever reason’ this route will also be used as access for all construction traffic.

 

Landscape and Visual

• The most significant landscape and visual effects arising from the construction process will be moving vehicles and machinery, delivery traffic and crane jibs used to lift the equipment into place.
• The construction activities, stockpiled materials, moving machinery and delivery vehicles will be visible from day one, and the rural landscape and open views from houses and footpaths will be destroyed and never recover.
• The industrialisation of rural countryside and loss of agricultural land will cause a permanent adverse impact on ecology and a loss of natural habitats for wildlife. This land will be permanently lost for food production.

 

Land Use

• Loss of agricultural land. This farmland will be lost to industrialisation for at least 40 years. Any assumption that this can be reversed when the project reaches its end of life is totally without foundation. The land will be very damaged and beyond recovery.
• The land, although having been graded 3b, is still productive agricultural land. As there are good levels of water retention on this site, with more dry weather, this can only be good for our crops, necessary for our food security which is already being threatened. Using perfectly good agricultural land for the purpose of a huge BESS site is unacceptable.

 

Archaeology

• The proposed development will have an adverse effect upon the significant prehistoric remains and associated features relating to settlement and the agricultural management of the landscape. The proposals will also have an adverse effect upon the significant Roman remains, cut features and finds of the period. The proposal will also have a minor adverse effect on those remains of medium significance, including prehistoric remains and cut features relating to settlement and agricultural use of the landscape, and Roman cut features and finds.

 

The Environment and Climate Change

• The BESS has been presented as being ‘green’ which is disingenuous. The site will only store energy taken from the grid at off-peak times to sell it back at peak times. The majority of this energy will come from traditional carbon heavy sources. It will not contribute new green energy to the grid.
• According to Statera’s application documents, this project could actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. The manufacturing of the battery packs would result in supply chain emissions of up to 1,083,320 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e)
• There will be a permanent adverse impact on ecology and loss of natural habitats for wildlife.

 

Fire Safety and Contamination Risks

• Each BESS container will contain thousands if not millions of lithium based rechargeable cells. It is well known for this type of battery to catch fire, primarily due to thermal runaway, and can happen very quickly. Lithium battery fires are particularly difficult to control because during combustion they generate their own oxygen, and can spontaneously re-ignite sometimes hours after apparently been extinguished. For this reason copious amounts of water are very often required to control and finally extinguish a fire.
• Fires can result in the ejection of a range of flammable and toxic gases which can either ignite immediately or spread out un-ignited until an external ignition source is encountered, resulting in an explosion. There could be a wide area affected by toxic and potentially explosive gasses in a large area downwind of any fire. With prevailing SW or NW winds this could affect Winslow town or Granborough village.
• The addition of an access point from East Claydon Road on a temporary basis during construction.
• The unacceptable risks of fire, explosion, and water pollution, and the catastrophic consequences on the local area and on the health and wellbeing of residents cannot be mitigated.
• Once constructed and in operation, the only access to the site will be from Hogshaw Road. Access for fire appliances is poor and fire appliances would need to negotiate Winslow town, the single track humped bridge into Granborough, through the village and finally enter the single track Hogshaw Road in order to reach the scene of the fire. This is totally inadequate. It does not satisfy the fire authorities requirement for two distinct access points for fire appliances during the lifetime of the development.

 

Cumulative Effect

• The cumulative effect has been vastly overlooked by the promoters of the project, yet again demonstrating a severe lack of foresight and understanding of the local area. Communities have suffered needlessly day in and day out for years with the impact of HS2 and EW rail projects and have taken far more than their fair share of the burden for large-scale projects that will do nothing to benefit them.

 

Danger to Public Health

• There is a potential for harmful waste water being used to extinguish fires, running into Claydon Brook. Salt water would be better to be used which is why BESS sites should be located on industrial sites close to the coast where there is an adequate supply of salt water.  Fire and contamination risks show that these significant projects should be located in coastal or desert areas.
• There is a significant health risk due to fluoride gas emissions, particularly due to there being a statistical certainty that multiple fires will occur with the lifespan of the project. Fires can produce toxic vapour clouds where so far, there has been no evidence of this being a risk either way but could mean a cause for respiratory health issues.
• As this applicant hasn’t provided a mitigation strategy it would not be deemed safe to be constructed or operated.
• Due to the extent of any fire at this location, responses will need to immediately be available to extinguish and contain toxic waste. There is just one engine station based in Winslow. There are 3 other stations but all of these will not be enough to deal with BESS fires with an immediate response.
• The site plan doesn’t provide emergency vehicle access to all containers.  Being just one access point via Hogshaw Road, it would be an extra 2 miles added to the route with more delays to the site.
• With the site being located within metres of an international light aircraft landing strip at Hollow Hill Farm this would not be an acceptable location as it would present too much risk for aircraft when taking off and landing.
• I would imagine that with the size of this site, possible number of fires and contamination, it would be questionable if this would actually be insurable.  It would need a very large amount of PLI to cover them.

 

Possible target for sabotage / terrorist activity

• This type of facility would be cause for a considerable security threat being a national target.

 

The need versus money making exercise

• According to this proposal there will be more carbon emissions being created than carbon benefits gained, being up to 1,083,320 tC02e (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) from the battery packs.
• It has been confirmed by the National Grid’s future energy Scenarios report of 2022, that the UK requires 20,000MW of battery storage by 2030 and 35,000 MW by 2050 in order to deliver against its Net Zero plans.
• The latest report by Renewable UK shows that the total pipeline of battery projects has increased to 85,000 MW in the last year!  According to the UK’s Energy & Climate Intelligence unit ‘The UK’s capacity (Including the consented projects) already exceeds National Grid’s expectations for battery storage capacity for 2023!
• Taking this very much into consideration, the proposal would make little or no difference to the UK’s ability to reach its storage targets for both 2030 and 2050.
• This shows how much this proposal is all about a very large money-making scheme and something that should be discounted immediately.

 

Detrimental effects on wildlife

• As per the BBOWT comments, although the applicant has included measures to include biodiversity, this would cause a detrimental effect on wildlife including illumination of protected bats and needs the right amount of lighting to meet H&S requirements. Due to mammals on site, gates would need to be erected but this would further provide a further security threat.

 

General

• The planned development of the Statera BESS does not comply with the VALP or the neighbourhood plans of the surrounding villages. It will have an unacceptable impact on the local environment and communities. It offers no real or fair benefit for the local communities affected by its construction and operation that offsets its immense impact on communities and the environment. Many local roads are totally unsuitable to carry the large and heavy equipment needed to construct and service this site.
• There can be no justification for developments of this nature on agricultural or greenfield sites. The UK is already on track to meet its battery storage requirements, with numerous sites already in operation and several more already approved and thus this development is simply not required.
• It is too big and too close to the village of Granborough whose residents will suffer the extreme consequences of a massive infrastructure development near to a rural village. The size of the installation will dominate the small village of Granborough and adversely affect the benefits of living in a rural community.
• The most significant landscape and visual effects arising from the construction process will be moving vehicles and machinery, delivery traffic and crane jibs used to lift the equipment into place. There will be vehicle fumes and noise pollution throughout the whole process. This project will cause destruction of lifestyle amenity in a village community, and destruction of the local the environment.
• When operational the 40 year lifetime of this project will have destroyed landscape and open views from houses and footpaths. The maturity of any landscaping measures is a long process and is unlikely to be adequate for at least 10 years. When operational, there will be noise and air pollution from cooling fans, transformers, inverters and other equipment for 24 hours a day. This will have an adverse effect on human health and wellbeing.
• There are no benefits and many adverse effects for local residents and their community.
• It is impossible to ignore the consequences of the decommissioning process, including HGV traffic volumes for removal of all installations, the risk of no real land recovery, and the insecurity of a battery recycling process.
• Along with a possible Rosefield Solar Farm, the BESS will forever desecrate the countryside in which Granborough and other effected villages sit. It is very unlikely to be returned to fields after the 40 year lifespan of the BESS and as Statera admit, the land will be very damaged.