An energy company, YLEM Energy, is currently appealing a decision made by Wakefield Council that denied its proposal to construct a battery storage plant at Cooksland Farm in West Yorkshire. The council rejected the plan for the installation of 24 containerized battery units capable of storing 50MW of renewable energy, citing concerns regarding the inappropriate use of green belt land. As part of the appeal process, YLEM Energy is advocating for the site to be classified as ‘grey belt,’ a designation introduced by the government to allow for selective development in regions traditionally considered green belt.
This proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) aims to store energy generated from renewable resources and supply it back to the National Grid during peak demand times. Despite its environmental intentions, the project has faced strong opposition from residents, with over 100 locals voicing their concerns regarding the project. Their objections focus on potential disruptions to the community, public safety risks, and threats to infrastructure, especially given the proximity of critical services such as a police station and an elderly care home.
Representatives against the project, including former Super League referee Ben Thaler, highlighted the severe and prolonged disruption that the construction of the battery facility would bring to the local area. They stressed the dangers posed by possible fires at the facility, given recent incidents at similar projects in the UK. In response, Aidan Van De Weyer, speaking on behalf of YLEM Energy, assured that safety protocols have significantly improved in recent years and insisted that their plan would not only help meet carbon reduction targets but also enhance the local energy infrastructure.
Supporters of the project, however, argue for the necessity of transitioning towards renewable energy technologies, stating that embracing new solutions is essential for combating climate change. The planning committee ultimately voted against the project, a decision that was closely contested with only a narrow margin—three votes against and two in favor. The Planning Inspectorate will now review the appeal, considering the submitted testimonies from all parties involved.
