Battery firm seeks to charge council

A developer behind controversial plans for a battery storage facility near a World Heritage Site has launched a bid to get the council to foot the bill after councillors rejected its proposal.

Telford & Wrekin Council says its elected planning committee did not act unreasonably when members went against the advice of their own officers to reject plans for land off Buildwas Bank, in Coalbrookdale.

Representatives of Lower Coalmoor BESS Limited say they are not making the application for costs ‘lightly’ but say the case was so ‘unreasonable’ that the council should face ‘discipline’.

A bid is also being made to overturn the council’s decision and for permission to be granted.

Statements lodged with the Planning Inspectorate in advance of a planning appeal hearing include the council defending the decision. It was taken by a majority of planning committee members at a meeting on September 4, 2024.

The developers’ agent says: “This application is not made lightly; the appellant is, of course, fully aware of the usual rule about costs in planning proceedings and the rarity with which applications for costs are made and granted.”

It adds that the development which would store renewable energy from wind and solar schemes.

“In choosing to ignore the advice of its professional officers elected members have acted unreasonably and caused wasted expense,” the document says.

A figure for the amount of costs the developer is seeking is not included in the documents. If the inspector sides with the developer it will have to sort it out with the council.

The developers add that it is an ‘exemplar’ case of unreasonableness and that councils should face ‘discipline’ in such circumstances.

“One function of the costs regime is to discipline a Local Planning Authority that has not exercised its statutory responsibilities in a proper way,” it states. “This is an exemplar case.”

They say that the decision of the council to refuse planning permission on grounds of land instability in the area went “contrary to specialised technical advice” and was was ‘substantively unreasonable’.

Councillors also claimed it would harm the settings of the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site and Severn Gorge Conservation Area.

The developers say that “there would be no harm to the respective settings of the Ironbridge Gorge WHS or the Severn Gorge Conservation Area.”

Telford & Wrekin Council, in a response to the developer say that the decision was ‘finely balanced’ because the plan was “not being wholly compliant with the development plan” and they recognized the “public benefits” associated with the type of development proposed.

“The Planning Committee, by majority vote, voted against the officer recommendation to approve the application on the basis that they considered the harm outweighed the public benefits.”

The council states that the developer could have submitted a revised planning application but chose not to.

“Members are satisfied that their actions have not caused unnecessary expenses,” the council adds.

“The appellants have disregarded the balanced judgement made by the Local Planning Authority within their committee report and the various references to the proposal not being wholly compliant with the Development Plan. This is therefore a factually incorrect claim.”

An inspector from the Planning Inspectorate will decide on the costs issue and whether the council’s decision should be overturned following a hearing in Telford on July 2, 2025.

Pic: Pegasus Group