Loudon Way, Repton Park, Ashford (micro energy storage)

Decision

dismissed, 15 September 2026

Decided by

Planning Inspector: Nicola Davies

Authority

Ashford (South East)

Appeal reference

6010987

Application reference

PA/2025/2065

Procedure

written representations

Development

Micro battery energy storage installation with acoustic fencing on a grassed landscape buffer at a road junction

Site context

inside settlement

Green Belt

No

Framework applied

August 2026 NPPF

Determinative policies

DP3

Development plan policies

Ashford Local Plan 2030 SP1, SP6, ENV3a

Main issues

character and appearance

Summary

A micro battery storage unit with acoustic fencing, proposed on an open grassed buffer at a road junction in Repton Park, Ashford. The inspector found it would be "extremely prominent", utilitarian and out of character. Screen planting would itself create a "conspicuous rectangle" of vegetation. The renewable benefits carried "little weight" and did not outweigh the harm. Appeal dismissed.

Issues and findings

• Character: harm. "Introducing a micro energy substation with its acoustic fencing within this green open space would be out of character … Given its location close to the highway the visual harm arising from the proposed development would be extremely prominent and highly visible in public views" (DL ¶7).
• Mitigation rejected. Planting "would create a conspicuous rectangle area of vegetation within the open area. This would appear as an inconsistent out of keeping feature" (DL ¶8).
• Context. The nearby substation "does not form a prominent feature within the immediate environs … it would not form part of the context of the appeal site" (DL ¶9).
• Benefits: little weight. "I acknowledge that the proposal would bring about environmental renewable energy benefits … Such benefits would not outweigh the harm … This offers little weight in favour of the proposal" (DL ¶10).

Planning balance

The benefits were weighed against the visual harm, and the harm prevailed. The scheme conflicted with LP SP1, SP6 and ENV3a and with "the provisions of the revised Framework" (DL ¶11). There was no S4 analysis, and no W3 or DP3(3) "clear justification" reasoning.

What made the difference

The site. This was a clean, prominent landscape buffer with no visible engineered context, unlike Didcot's roundabout of pylons and gantries. But the weighting of benefits is also out of line. Didcot (PINS-6009340) applied W3(1) "substantial weight" to the same product, whereas here the benefits got "little weight" and W3 was not mentioned. That is an inconsistency worth flagging in any later representation.

Transferable points

• A prominent open landscape buffer can defeat even small energy infrastructure where there is no screening context, and planting that would look contrived does not overcome the harm (DL ¶7-8).
• An engineered feature that is itself screened from public view does not form part of the site's visual context (DL ¶9).
• Caution. Applicants can argue that ¶10 is inconsistent with W3(1)'s "substantial weight" instruction, and with PINS-6009340.

Policy findings

Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.

Key facts

• Operator AMP Clean Energy; same product as the allowed Didcot (6009340) and Great Dunmow (6010164) appeals
• Open grass verges form landscape buffers along the A28 and are "a visually distinctive characteristic of the locality" (DL ¶5)
• Nearest substation is screened behind a timber fence and so does not give an engineered context (DL ¶9)
• Inspector "had regard to" the revised Framework without saying whether the parties were consulted (DL ¶2)

Related decisions

• PINS-6009340
• PINS-6010164

Sources

• Appeal on the Planning Inspectorate appeals service
• Decision letter (Planning Inspectorate)

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.