Batteries, Backyards and Bitter Pills: What the Frome BESS Appeal Really Teaches Us
by
Councillor Oliver Patrick
Liberal Democrat Councillor and Vice Chair of Planning Committee South, Somerset Council
If you have been to a planning committee meeting recently, you will know one thing for certain: Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) are the new housing estates. They divide opinion, stir local politics, fill public galleries and generate a healthy amount of late-night emails about fireballs, toxic plumes and why anyone thought it was a good idea to put the site in that particular spot.
The recent appeal decision for the Styles Close BESS in Frome is a perfect case study in how this new generation of energy infrastructure is being handled. It shows how councillors, residents and the Planning Inspectorate each approach these decisions. And, whisper it quietly, the Inspectorate is becoming increasingly comfortable approving them (appeal ref: APP/E3335/W/25/3369276)
So what actually happened in Frome? And what can developers learn?
A site that had everything, including a cul-de-sac
On paper, the location looked ideal for a BESS scheme. It sits directly beside a substantial electricity substation. On the ground, however, it is a sloping piece of rough grass behind Styles Close, a quiet cul-de-sac where residents valued their greenery, calm and lack of industrial structures.
Somerset Council’s Planning Committee East looked at the 40-year proposal for containerised batteries, transformers, inverters and tall fencing and decided to refuse it. Their concerns focused on residential amenity, noise, the narrow access point and, of course, fire safety. Fire is always the central issue at BESS applications.
The developer appealed.
The Inspector arrives with his safety goggles on
Fire safety was the main battleground. Residents feared thermal runaway, explosions and toxic smoke. The Inspector took these concerns seriously but relied on expert evidence rather than speculation.
The Fire and Rescue Service did not object. The battery chemistry was lithium iron phosphate, which is lower risk than other types. Suppression systems included automated inert-gas aerosol release. Drainage and pollution control measures ensured that any firefighting water would be contained. Statistical evidence showed that failures are extremely rare and UK incidents even rarer.
The message was clear. This was a battery storage site, not a ticking time bomb.
This reflects a wider trend. If professional consultees are satisfied, Inspectors give very little weight to fear alone.
Noise: fans, decibels and enforced good behaviour
Cooling fans often become the villain in local debates. Residents imagine a constant industrial hum. The Inspector reviewed the modelling, noted full compliance with British Standards and imposed a strong condition: operational noise cannot exceed 5 dB above background levels. If it does, the batteries must shut down.
In effect, this is an automatic good neighbour requirement built into the permission.
Visual impact: everything looks better when it is seven metres lower
Styles Close residents worried the development would dominate their view. The Inspector noticed two important features during his site visit.
The land drops by around seven metres from the rear gardens.
The existing view already includes a pylon and a major substation.
This was not untouched countryside. It was already influenced by energy infrastructure. With the required planting at meaningful maturity, the Inspector concluded the outlook impact was acceptable.
For developers, the lesson is simple. Context matters. Do not underplay it.
Ecology, drainage and lighting all resolved
The ecological package, drainage strategy, lighting design and biodiversity measures were all judged acceptable and were secured by conditions. None posed a reason for refusal.
The big planning lesson: net zero carries serious weight
The Inspector gave significant weight to the national benefits of grid storage. He did not require a demonstration of need. The NPPF establishes that. He acknowledged localised harm but did not consider it enough to outweigh the strategic benefits.
This is the direction of travel.
What Frome teaches developers
Evidence matters far more than assertion, especially on fire safety.
Early engagement with the fire service is vital.
Conditions are not a burden. They can strengthen the case.
Landscape and outlook concerns can be managed with design and planting.
Fear is not a defensible planning reason without technical backing.
National policy support for net zero is a powerful material consideration.
A final thought
BESS schemes are here to stay. They will continue to be controversial and politically sensitive. But the Frome decision shows that when a proposal is carefully evidenced, well designed and backed by expert consultees, it stands an excellent chance of approval even in the face of strong local opposition.
The future is electric, and planning decisions are beginning to reflect that.