A Bexley battery appeal has cleared the way for a 200 MW energy storage facility on Green Belt farmland at North Cray Road, Sidcup. Inspector Graham Chamberlain allowed the project even though the Inspector found the site was not grey belt and the scheme constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
The decision, issued on 6 November 2026 after a hearing on 22 October, overturns Bexley Council’s refusal of application 25/00833/FULM. Net Zero Thirty-Two Limited proposed a battery energy storage system operating for up to 40 years and connected by underground cable to Hurst Grid Substation.
It is a consequential application of the revised National Planning Policy Framework. Strong national support for energy security and flexibility outweighed several recognised harms. This is not blanket approval for battery facilities in protected countryside; the site-specific balance, mitigations and eventual restoration were central to the outcome.
Why the Bexley battery appeal succeeded
The scheme includes battery containers, transformers, inverters, switchgear, a control building, access tracks, landscaping and associated infrastructure. The undeveloped agricultural field is close to Sidcup and Foots Cray within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Inspector considered the proposal through a section 78 planning appeal, not a nationally significant infrastructure consent.
The principal issues were grey belt classification, Green Belt openness and purposes, landscape effects, the quality of agricultural land and whether very special circumstances existed. During the site visit on 27 October, the Inspector also viewed the site from nearby homes on Parsonage Lane and North Cray Road, as their occupants had requested at the hearing.
Although the development would be temporary, 40 years is a long period. Conditions require the equipment and associated infrastructure to be removed and the land restored afterwards. The Inspector concluded that the temporary nature of the scheme provided some further mitigation, reducing the extent of harm, while describing 40 years as a very long time in a human life span
.
The site was not grey belt
The Bexley battery appeal did not succeed under the grey belt exception in Policy GB7(g). The Inspector found the field strongly contributed to preventing unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, a key Green Belt purpose. It was not previously developed land, and its position near the existing urban edge did not make it a logical infill site.
Bexley’s Green Belt assessment placed it in parcel GB80, which strongly contributed to preventing sprawl. The Greater London Authority’s assessment made a similar finding in area BX21. Although the local assessment had not been examined through a local plan process or been subject to consultation, its methodology remained useful evidence rather than determinative policy.
The Inspector warned against excessive subdivision of Green Belt assessment areas into individual development sites. Nearby polytunnels and agricultural buildings offered no convincing boundary for non-agricultural expansion. The Inspector concluded that the field was not grey belt land
. See Planning Geek’s grey belt and Green Belt explanation for the significance of this distinction.
Green Belt and farmland harm remained
The Bexley battery appeal involved an industrial compound in an open agricultural landscape. Despite much of the equipment being low in height, the Inspector found moderate adverse effects on openness and Green Belt purposes. The installation would also harm local landscape character, particularly in views from a path near Chalk Wood, even after allowing for screening.
Existing hedges would be retained and supplemented by planting, including a substantial landscape belt. The Inspector concluded that new greenery would reduce the visual effects over time, but it could not undo the initial conversion of an open field into an energy facility. The harm was real, though not at the highest level.
The agricultural land is approximately 89% Grade 3a and the balance Grade 2, making it best and most versatile land. Bexley accepted an alternative-site search within three kilometres of Hurst Substation that found no suitable poorer-quality site. The Inspector still recorded a limited adverse impact from hardstanding, equipment and possible soil compaction.
The energy benefits tipped the balance
The Bexley battery appeal was ultimately allowed because the Inspector placed substantial weight on the value of electricity storage to grid flexibility and resilience. The Inspector referred to National Policy Statement EN-1 and the August 2026 Framework’s Policy W3, which supports renewable and low-carbon energy development. Applicants do not have to prove an abstract need for battery infrastructure.
The appellant’s alternative-site assessment found no preferable site near the substation on previously developed land or outside the Green Belt. The Inspector said the absence of alternatives was a positive factor, not a separate legal test that an applicant must invariably satisfy. Construction investment and ongoing maintenance would also bring some economic benefits.
Ecological enhancements would include wildflower meadow, scrub, new hedgerows and trees. The conditions require net gains of at least 84.43% in habitat units and 21.52% in hedgerow units. The Inspector regarded biodiversity benefits as significant alongside the contribution to energy supply and security.
In resolving the Bexley battery appeal, the Inspector held that the other considerations would clearly outweigh the cumulative harm
. The Inspector therefore found the very special circumstances required by Policy GB6. This was permission justified despite inappropriate development, not a conclusion that the site was grey belt or that Green Belt protection did not apply.
Fire safety, traffic and safeguards
Concerns included potential battery fires, contamination, noise, landscape effects and construction traffic. The Inspector considered technical reports and measures informed by National Fire Chiefs Council guidance, including monitoring, fire suppression, ventilation and emergency arrangements. The London Fire Brigade’s expert input and the lack of objections from relevant technical consultees carried significant weight.
Conditions require detailed fire-safety and emergency-response plans, pollution containment and other measures before the scheme proceeds. The Inspector took the view that professional safeguards could manage the risks on this site. That assessment does not mean every battery-storage scheme will pass the same tests, especially where housing is closer or the safety evidence is weaker.
Construction traffic was expected to average two heavy goods vehicles visiting the site per day, with a maximum of ten. Access, routing and traffic management are controlled by conditions. Operational traffic would be much lower, mainly for maintenance. The proposals also contain controls over landscaping, lighting, noise and the design of the energy equipment.
What the Bexley battery appeal means
The important distinction is between Green Belt classification and the final balance. Failure to demonstrate grey belt status can be overcome by very special circumstances, but only where the evidence clearly outweighs the harm. Developers should avoid assuming that renewable or low-carbon infrastructure has an automatic exemption.
On this site, the connection to Hurst Substation, the search for alternatives, extensive biodiversity proposals, risk mitigation and the 40-year decommissioning requirement supported the case. The decision offers a useful comparison with other BESS projects. Our guide to planning permission for battery storage explains the information typically needed.
The Bexley battery appeal was allowed on 6 November 2026 by Inspector Graham Chamberlain, appeal reference 6008240. The appeal decision is also available on AppealBase. The council application reference is 25/00833/FULM.
0 Comments