Local campaigner, Mark Smith, joined dozens of other local residents in Sandwell and Walsall on the opening day of the Planning Appeal at Walsall Council House, yesterday (November 5). Here are our thoughts about the first day, and a summary of our comments. As many of you already know, this Appeal is due to Anesco appealing against Walsall Council, claiming they did not decide their planning application to build a large battery energy storage system on the fields opposite The Duckery in the required timeframe. There were 14 speakers representing the local community, at the Inquiry, and dozens of others in the Public Gallery.

This story has been covered by the Birmingham Mail already, as they had one of their Local Democracy Reporters at the Inquiry.. 
Residents fighting Walsall development tell inquiry they are ‘expected to live in fear’

---

Other members of the Beacon Action Group and Friends of Merrion’s Wood commented on the historic environment, and listed buildings, in the area. (Church of St. Margaret, Old Hall Farmhouse, Old Hall Farm Barn, and Great Barr Hall Registered Park and Garden.) An industrial installation such as the BESS would destroy the tranquility and character of the area. They also provided evidence on archeological remains near the site, and the history of the local area (Men of Aldridge).

Several local residents from both Walsall and Sandwell expressed concerns about the safety of BESS installations. There have been several fires at similar sites, and this site will be in operation for 40 years. They also highlighted the threat to local wildlife, including the numerous species of bats in the area, and the threat to them and their habitat (on average, bats forage over a distance of 3km from their roosts).

Two representatives from Barr Beacon School also expressed their concern about the safety of the installation, were it to be built, and the risk it would pose to the 140 staff and 1,300 pupils at the school.

---

These are the comments Mark and Sadie submitted to the Inquiry.

Chapel Lane is a delicate country lane that already has too much traffic going along it, and is totally unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles to use. The Lane has a 7.5 tonne weight restriction, and the HGVs used during the construction period will far exceed this weight limit.

So the question is whether Chapel Lane is suitable for hundreds of trips by 40t HGVs that are 16m long and 2.5 m wide? (Most of the HGVs will be around 11 tonnes when fully laden, but the heaviest loads will be over 100 tonnes.) 
There are expected to be 380 trips along the lane over a 36- to 40-week period. The HGVs will be expected to “pull up away from the site” and turn right onto Chapel Lane from the slip road. (This is a manoeuvre that buses and coaches cannot complete.) This means the slip road between Arran Close and the filter into Wilderness Lane is the only stretch of road where the HGVs could pull up.  This slip road is used by buses and the addition of long HGVs waiting to access Chapel Lane will restrict access for residents on that part of the Birmingham Road. 
We feel this stretch of the Birmingham Road should be part of the site visit, as the HGVs will need to get across the Birmingham Road, to the slip road for Chapel Lane, in quite a short distance.

Chapel Lane also goes past listed buildings, such as St Margaret’s church and its churchyard. The vibrations, caused by 40-tonne HGVs thundering over the speed humps in close proximity to these buildings, will likely damage some of the listed buildings, and other properties on the Lane. (Studies have shown that physical damage can occur to buildings located at least 4m from the source.) The constant hum from the completed site will also disturb the tranquillity of the neighbourhood for people visiting the churchyard. The Lane also has a narrow chicane to control traffic flow, near the junction with Coronation Road, and this will be difficult for large HGVs to negotiate. And as there are soft verges along both sides of the lane, walkers and horse riders will find it difficult to pass these large HGVs safely.

Chapel Lane is often flooded with surface water due to inadequate drainage as it is, and the site is close to a Flood Zone 3 area. It has already been closed several times this year due to flooding, and this development would reduce the site’s ability to absorb water and increase run-off from the artificial surface at the installation. This means the road is likely to be closed due to flooding even more often than it is now, increasing soil erosion, the number of potholes, and undermining the stability of buildings in the area.

Given the prospect of increased wear on the road surface of Chapel Lane from the HGVs, risk of damage to road infrastructure on Birmingham Road, and of damage to properties along the Lane, the applicant should be liable for any cost in repairing any such damage.

Misleading claims about unsuitability of alternative sites 
Anesco claims that alternative sites in the area are not suitable, yet restricts itself to a 1 kilometre radius of their preferred connection point. Its own report states that a BESS is only unfeasible beyond 2km from the connection, so this 1km restriction is a false one. Even their Alternative Site Assessment admits this is a preference rather than a requirement. 
Anesco also claim that the scale and magnitude of this second application is  broadly aligned with its first failed application, when it is actually 50% larger. 

Why has this appeal been granted?
Some of the documents listed in Anesco’s Planning Statement of November 2023 have still not been submitted. these include the Biodiversity Net Gain Calculations that are required for all new planning applications.
This Appeal is on the grounds of non determination of the application, even though this is due to their failure to provide all the documents listed in their original Planning Statement.
In addition, Anesco submitted its appeal for a decision on this case on 3 July 2024, with the Appeal starting on July 18. It therefore seems unreasonable for them to have been able to submit revised documents for this application after the Appeal date. (They have submitted 13 revised documents since launching the Appeal.) If they had supplied the documents required for a decision to be taken, then why have they felt it necessary to submit revised documents, especially as some of these contained information they failed to include in their original documents, such as the 15m high comms tower, or were inaccurate.

---

Sandwell Liberal Democrats and Walsall Liberal Democrats response

Why should Walsall tax payers be expected to cover the cost of Anesco’s appeal? Anesco appear to be using the Appeal to submit what is essentially a new application with revised documents? As former Councillors, we see no reason why tax payers in Walsall should be expected to cover the cost of this Appeal given that it appears to be due to the applicant’s failure to submit accurate plans. we therefore feel that this appeal should be dismissed and costs awarded against Anesco.

Considering all of these issues, the facility being proposed would be better located in a more industrial setting – there are many more suitable sites within the West Midlands. So, for the benefit of everyone, the very few local locations of peaceful countryside such as the Chapel Lane area need to be protected from inadvertently destructive developments such as this one.

Mark Smith, Sandwell Liberal Democrats 

Dan Barker, Walsall Liberal Democrats

   1 Comment