- Decision
- allowed, 14 September 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: S McIntyre
- Authority
- South Oxfordshire (South East)
- Appeal reference
- 6009340
- Application reference
- P25/S1790/FUL
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Micro battery energy storage installation on a highway verge beside a roundabout
- Site context
- settlement edge
- Green Belt
- No
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- W3(1), W3(2), DP3(3)
- Development plan policies
- South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2020 STRAT3, DES1, DES2, DES9
- Main issues
- character and appearance
Summary
A small battery energy storage unit on a roadside verge at a Didcot roundabout. South Oxfordshire refused it on character grounds. The inspector found minor, localised harm and conflict with the development plan, and with DP3(1). But substantial W3 weight to energy security and net zero, which needs no proof of need, supplied the "clear justification" DP3(3) requires. Appeal allowed. The parties were consulted on the new Framework (DL ¶4).
Issues and findings
- Character: minor harm. The unit "would be conspicuous in close public views … It follows that the proposal would lead to a reduction in openness and verdancy to the detriment of local character. Due to the small-scale of the proposal, the effects would be minor in nature and localised in scale, but they would nonetheless be harmful" (DL ¶10).
- W3: substantial weight without quantified need. "Whilst the benefit of the proposal is not precisely quantified in the evidence, Policy W3 of the Framework is clear that applicants should not be required to demonstrate the need … and that substantial weight should be given to the benefits of improving energy security and the transition to a net zero future, as well as the contribution that small-scale renewable and low carbon energy projects can make" (DL ¶13). "Notwithstanding its small scale, the proposal would make an important contribution … these benefits of the scheme carry substantial positive weight" (DL ¶14).
- Battery safety. NFCC guidance, referenced in PPG, was addressed by separation from the planned active travel routes (DL ¶16).
Planning balance
This was a s38(6) balance with Framework DP3 as a material consideration. The proposal conflicted with the plan as a whole and with "Policy DP3.1 of the Framework which expects developments to enhance their surroundings" (DL ¶21). But "the substantial weight I ascribe to the benefits … would outweigh the minor and localised harm … There would, therefore, be clear justification for the harm that would arise, as is required by Policy DP3.3 of the Framework" (DL ¶22).
What made the difference
The W3(1) "substantial weight" instruction applied to a very small battery unit with no quantified output, set against a character harm the inspector rated minor. The already heavily engineered setting (pylons, railway gantry, substation) kept the harm low. Compare the Ashford sister appeal (PINS-6010987). There the verge was a prominent landscape buffer, the harm was "extremely prominent", and the inspector gave renewable benefits only "little weight", without citing W3.
Transferable points
- W3 substantial weight applies to battery storage even where the benefit is not quantified. W3(2) means need need not be shown (DL ¶13-14).
- DP3(3) "clear justification" can be supplied by weighty public benefits, so a DP3(1) conflict does not automatically mean refusal (DL ¶22).
- Small-scale energy storage counts as a "small-scale … low carbon energy project" for W3(1)(c) (DL ¶13).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| DP3(1) | conflict | minor, localised erosion of verge openness and verdancy at a gateway / future cycle entrance to Ladygrove East (DL ¶10, ¶21) | |
| DP3(3) | pass | "clear justification" for the design harm supplied by the substantial W3 benefits (DL ¶22) | |
| W3(1) | benefit | substantial | energy security and net zero, plus small-scale contribution under (c), even though benefit "not precisely quantified" (DL ¶13-14) |
| W3(2) | benefit | need does not have to be demonstrated (DL ¶13) | |
| STRAT3 / DES1 / DES2 (SOLP 2020) | conflict | harm to character; conflict with plan as a whole (DL ¶11, ¶21) | |
| P5 | pass | NFCC battery siting guidance, good separation from the proposed active travel routes (DL ¶16) |
Key facts
- Operator AMP Clean Energy; one of a series of near-identical verge "micro energy storage" appeals (see related)
- Roundabout verge dominated by highway, pylons, railway gantry and a small substation, but still open and green (DL ¶6-7)
- Adjoins the Ladygrove East strategic site (up to 750 homes), which will urbanise the area (DL ¶8)
- Benefit not quantified in evidence, yet substantial weight still given (DL ¶13)
- Maintenance visits twice a year, secured by a site maintenance plan condition (DL ¶20)
Related decisions
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.