Wrong project, wrong place: Battery energy storage near A19 is damaging and we'll lose best farmland and views

Sunderland City Council’s Planning and Highways Committee, at a meeting this week, approved an application for a parcel of agricultural land at Hastings Hill Farm, near the A19 and the ‘National Grid Offerton Substation’.

Plans from Root Power (North) Limited, submitted last year (2024), sought permission for a “38MW battery energy storage system” at the site near Foxcover Road with associated access, fencing and infrastructure.

A design and access statement from developers said the facility would “store energy in times of an energy surplus and release it back to the grid when demands exceed supply”, to help “balance” the National Grid during periods of high demand.

The development was described as an “essential component of energy infrastructure, which aids the maintenance of energy security for the area and wider regions” and a “fundamental aspect of the UK moving towards net zero.”

During a council public consultation exercise on the plans, 14 objections were lodged raising concerns about impacts on the landscape and the Green Belt, as well as highway and pedestrian safety issues, loss of agricultural land, fire safety and more.

The three city councillors for the Sandhill ward, Margaret Crosby, Paul Edgeworth and Stephen O’Brien, also lodged objections raising a number of concerns and citing conflicts with planning policies.

Go beyond the story - sign up for our Sunderland Echo newsletters

Concerns were linked to the design quality of the scheme, impacts on views and “landscape character”, heritage impacts on Scheduled Ancient Monuments, risk to a nearby site of special scientific interest (SSSI), Green Belt impacts, local concerns over fire safety and highway safety issues.

However, Sunderland City Council’s planning department, in a committee report published ahead of a decision-making meeting this week, recommended the planning application for approval.

Arguments for and against the plans were made at a meeting of the Planning and Highways Committee at City Hall on Monday, June 9, 2025, and the plans were eventually approved by a majority of councillors.

Council planners, in a report prepared for the committee, said the plans would “contribute to meeting national net zero targets in relation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions”, as well as “contributing towards the council’s low carbon action plan”.

It was noted that plans for the site were “not considered to be inappropriate development” in the Green Belt, that there was a “demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed” and that the Green Belt impact would be “moderate” due to the “rolling landform, the boundary hedgerow and mature tree belts and proposed planting”.

Although council planners acknowledged the proposal would “cause a level of harm to the landscape character and protected views”, they added the battery energy storage system would “not be particularly intrusive and [would] result in a minimal amount of harm to the landscape” and that the development and public benefits outweighed the harm identified.

On heritage impacts, it was noted that the development would result in “low to moderate level of harm to the significance of the Hastings Hill Round Barrow SAM (Scheduled Ancient Monument)” which sits “180m to the north east of the site.”

The Planning and Highways Committee questioned why the specific site, and associated visual impacts on the landscape and SAM sites, was chosen, with councillor Graeme Miller asking whether the development site could have been located on land nearer Offerton Substation.

Council planners, responding, said the applicant had identified 10 sites as potentially able to house the development and that it was a matter for the developer to consider whether a site was “achievable or attainable.”

There were questions raised about whether the land could return to agricultural use after the battery energy storage development’s 40-year time limit, along with concerns about the development’s heritage impacts and impacts on the character of the area.

This included impacts on nearby Scheduled Ancient Monuments, the Hastings Hill Round Barrow and the Hastings Hill Cursus and Causeway Enclosure, both listed by Historic England.

Councillors Paul Edgeworth and Margaret Crosby attended the City Hall meeting to voice their objections to the plan, outlining concerns on behalf of residents.

Cllr Edgeworth said he didn’t think the scheme’s benefits outweighed the “harm to the landscape and loss of visual amenity”.

“I don’t think the benefits outweigh the cumulative damage to the character of the area, the loss of resident amenity, the loss of visual amenity, the risk to Scheduled Ancient Monuments and the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land, which can’t be reintroduced,” he added.

“It seems to me that there’s lots of other industrial brownfield sites across the city, there’s lots of other sites near to this substation that aren’t right on top of Scheduled Ancient Monuments, and I don’t think we should be riding roughshod over local people’s amenity and recreational facilities situated in a unique landscape that’s defined by its rural and agricultural nature.”

Councillor Margaret Crosby said the plan “causes avoidable harm to heritage assets”, potential noise issues and “safety and emergency risks” and was the “wrong project in the wrong place.”

A representative for the applicant Root Power (North) Limited said there was “national support for this form of development”, and noted several similar developments had been approved at appeal, even when there’s conflict with planning policy.

The Root Power representative said the proposed site was the “only site available” as other alternative sites were not large enough or “landowners did not come forward” and that the development was in line with the Government’s ambition towards reaching net zero.

Councillors were told the site would be screened through landscaping, that the development would deliver “ecological enhancements” and that the land would be restored to its original condition after 40 years, along with fire safety and monitoring measures built into the scheme when it is operational.

Council highways officers, responding to questions about traffic, also confirmed operational traffic from battery energy storage facilities would be “very low” and that construction stage traffic movements would be managed.

During debate on the plans, councillor Martin Haswell called for a vote to refuse the battery energy storage facility, against the recommendation of council officers.

The refusal motion was made on the grounds of impacts to visual amenity, residential amenity and agricultural land but after being put to a vote, the motion did not win majority support.

The battery energy storage facility plans were subsequently approved by a majority of councillors after another vote was held, with Cllr Haswell and councillor Andrew Wood voting against the development.

Check out the latest developments in Sunderland

Councillor Martyn Herron, who voted in support of the plan, said it “seems like the right development but in the wrong place” and questioned Historic England’s statements around heritage impacts on Scheduled Ancient Monuments.

However, Cllr Herron added that he “didn’t feel there’s a reasonable way for me to object to this [application] under planning law as it stands.”

Council planners, responding, acknowledged that there would be an impact on a Scheduled Ancient Monument and that the site is of archaeological importance, but stressed conditions would be placed on the development.

They added there were no objections raised by consultees Historic England, the council’s conservation officer or the Tyne and Wear archaeology officer.

Several plans for battery energy storage systems have been considered by North East councils in recent months.

Plans from Whirlwind Energy Storage Limited for a development near West Boldon Substation were refused by South Tyneside Council’s Planning Committee back in 2024, but the plans were later approved by a national planning inspector after developers lodged an appeal.

Sunderland City Council’s Planning and Highways Committee also recently approved plans from Newton Energi for a battery energy storage development near the roundabout connecting the A183 and the A19.

The latest development on Wearside is from a separate applicant and on a separate site, south of the recently approved Sunderland development.

Root Power (North) Limited, the applicant for the latest scheme, said it aims to tackle a “significant lack of network capacity around the UK which can hamper the use and take up of renewable energy generation such as wind turbines and solar arrays”, with battery storage developments aiming to “increase this capacity allowing more renewable energy to be brought online”.

A design and access statement from applicants added the benefits of the proposed development included “reduced energy bills by undercutting gas-fired generators”, and “increased energy security [and] improved grid reliance – mitigating the risk of a blackout.”

Get the latest updates - follow us on our Facebook page

Proposed equipment on the site includes a substation, switch room, ‘battery clusters’ and other structures, as well as fire safety technology and measures to “isolate any contaminated water from the general flow” in the event of a fire.

Access is proposed from an unnamed road adjacent to Foxcover Road, to the west of the site, and the development site will have security fencing and CCTV.

It was noted that the point of access “can facilitate larger vehicles during the construction phase of the development” and once the battery energy storage system is operational, the site will be visited for “maintenance purposes only.”

Councillor Margaret Crosby, speaking after Monday’s Planning and Highways Committee meeting, said she hopes Sunderland City Council “don’t live to regret the decision” to approve the plans.

“Council bosses really need to get a proper plan in place for how to deal with applications for these battery energy storage facilities so they are only approved in suitable, safe places,” she added.

Under planning conditions, the development must be brought forward within three years.

For more information on the planning application, visit Sunderland City Council’s planning portal website and search reference: 24/02111/FUL