Kingston has adopted a screening opinion for the proposed 240MW / 960MWh Chessington BESS on land off the A243 Leatherhead Road. The council’s formal screening opinion confirms that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required.
That is not planning permission. Screening addresses the need for the formal EIA process. It does not approve the battery site, settle the Green Belt case or remove the need for the evidence required with a planning application.
The council’s register records screening reference 26/01808/EIASCR as Adopted, with the decision issued on 11th September 2026. The formal screening letter is dated 10th September 2026 and confirms that the proposal is not likely to have significant effects on the environment.
What is proposed at Chessington?
Eku Energy’s Chessington project page describes a battery energy storage system with 240MW of power capacity and 960MWh of energy storage. It identifies land off Leatherhead Road and describes the project as proposed.
Those figures describe different things. Megawatts measure the rate at which electricity can be delivered; megawatt-hours measure the amount of energy stored. They should not be treated as interchangeable descriptions of size.
The council’s planning register identifies the land as Green Belt. Its current entry is a request for an EIA screening opinion under regulation 6, not an application asking the council to grant permission for the development.
Our Battery Energy Storage Systems planning guide explains the wider planning issues for a standalone battery site.
What the BESS screening decision does
Kingston treated this proposal as Schedule 2 development under category 3(a), concerning industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water. The letter records that its site area exceeds 0.5 hectares and that it is not Schedule 1 development.
Having considered the Schedule 3 criteria, the council concluded that significant environmental effects were not likely and that EIA was not required. Crossing the Schedule 2 threshold triggered the screening question, not an automatic requirement for an Environmental Statement.
Under the 2017 EIA Regulations, Schedule 2 development requires EIA where it is likely to have significant effects on the environment because of factors such as its nature, size or location.
A screening opinion addresses that legal question. A negative opinion means an Environmental Statement under those Regulations is not required for the proposal as screened. It does not mean that the development has no environmental effects.
Our EIA Screening and Scoping guide explains the distinction between screening, scoping, an Environmental Statement and the eventual planning decision.
Screening is not a test based solely on the headline MW figure. The project’s characteristics, its location and the nature of the likely effects matter. Regulation 5 requires the relevant Schedule 3 criteria to be considered and reasons to be given for the conclusion.
The planning merits are still undecided
The word Adopted on the screening record should not be mistaken for approval of the battery development.
A negative screening opinion is not a grant of planning permission. It does not establish that the proposal is acceptable in the Green Belt, approve landscape effects, resolve ecological impacts, or amount to a fire-safety or highways approval.
The ordinary planning application still needs to be submitted and determined. The council will need enough information to assess the actual proposal and the relevant planning policies.
That distinction also matters when describing the result to residents. Screening out of EIA removes a particular assessment procedure; it does not remove the planning application process.
Ecology does not disappear when EIA is unnecessary
Kingston’s screening letter expressly requires robust and detailed information for any future proposal, particularly about bats and great crested newts. It records activity by those species in the vicinity and refers to adjacent and nearby Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation.
The wider principle is straightforward. A project can be outside the formal EIA process and still need surveys and an assessment of effects on habitats and protected species.
Our ecological appraisal and EcIA guide explains the ordinary planning evidence. An absence of an Environmental Statement is not an absence of ecological responsibilities.
Applicants should distinguish the information needed to decide the screening question from the evidence needed to determine the eventual application. A negative screening opinion is not a guarantee that a later application has sufficient ecological information.
Green Belt policy still has to be applied
The site’s Green Belt designation remains relevant to any future application. The applicable route must be assessed under the current national and local policy framework, using the actual land and development proposed.
Our Green Belt and grey belt guide explains why different policy routes have different requirements.
The screening record does not establish that this site is grey belt or that any exception to inappropriate development has been met. Nor does it determine whether very special circumstances could be demonstrated if they are needed.
There is no sound basis for predicting the planning outcome simply from the EIA decision.
Residents can still comment on a later application
A negative EIA screening opinion does not take away the opportunity to make representations on a later planning application. The applicable publicity and consultation requirements still apply.
Comments on that application can address material planning issues, including landscape, noise, ecology, access and the Green Belt case. They should be directed at the proposal and evidence then submitted, rather than assuming those matters have already been approved.
Screening decisions also sit within their own legal framework. Regulation 5 allows any person to ask the Secretary of State in writing for a screening direction; that is distinct from commenting on the planning merits.
Planning Geek analysis: one procedural answer, not a planning approval
There are two different questions: does the scheme need the formal EIA process, and should planning permission be granted? An answer to the first does not answer the second.
For promoters, early screening can clarify the assessment route before the application package is finalised. For residents and advisers, the practical task is to read the screening opinion, then assess the planning application on its own evidence when it comes forward.
Read the primary records
Search 26/01808/EIASCR on Kingston’s planning register. The Documents tab lists the Officer Report, site location drawing and covering letter.
The council’s listed Officer Report and screening opinion is the formal source for the decision. The statutory procedure is in regulation 6 of the EIA Regulations 2017.
Report prepared: 13th September 2026
0 Comments