We are one of the two existing properties closest to, and most impacted by, this proposed development.  We object to this proposal in the strongest possible terms for the following reasons:

1. This is a significant infrastructure plan which proposes the industrialisation of over 10 acres of high quality farmland currently used for grazing.  For a plan of this size and impact, the consultation period was far too short and not properly completed.  The face-to-face presentation by Enray took place after this application was submitted meaning any valid challenges or questions raised have been ignored – we have a list of 18 questions given to Enray during that meeting which have yet to be answered.The application itself is clearly deliberately misleading and does not include vital information such as the total energy storage capacity, lifetime of the BESS and frequency of battery replacements or repairs.  Misleading information around the number of homes this would service is provided, with no evidence to back up these claims.  The claim that over 20,000 tonnes of CO2 would be offset annually fails to consider the CO2 impact during manufacture in and transportation from China.  The Planning Design and Access Statement (PDAS) says 50 storage containers are planned in paragraph 3.9 but paragraph 3.10 shows 60 containers.  The PDAS does not reflect the latest National Fire Chiefs Council guidance.  The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment fails entirely to take into consideration the impact to the nearest 2 properties and focuses on the visual impact to farm leasing its own land for this proposal.  The impact from the north west and south west needs to be considered as well as the impact visually to existing properties Five Acre and Webbery Cross Cottage.  Those images provided clearly demonstrate the negligible effect of the screening proposed for this development which is clearly not suitable in any attempt to disguise the industrialisation of this 10 acres of Devon countryside

2. This area is quite literally under siege from renewable energy related plans (solar, wind and BESS) and we already have our fair share - there should be no further adverse impact to the countryside in this Parish.  The details in the PDAS are now out of date now that the results of the National Energy System Operator (NESO) connections reform have been published.  This has shown that we have over 4 times the amount of “shovel ready” projects to fulfil Clean Power 2030 (CP30) targets including 3 times the amount of BESS required.  There is already a BESS facility approved at Gammaton some 600m to the south of our property and an application for a BESS facility as part of the Bulworthy Solar Farm was submitted in June of 2025.  Where does it end?  Enray themselves admit this in paragraph 2.7 of their PDAS which suggests this area is already “fettered with other energy infrastructure.”  In reality, they are talking about the solar fields further to the south, much closer to the Alverdiscott substation, and their proposal constitutes infill between their and the Bulworthy proposal.  It really is like a Wild West Gold Rush in North Devon currently when it has been clearly demonstrated that enough renewable projects have already been approved to meet near and mi-term requirements.  Contrary to the content of the application, and what Enray were telling us on 10th December last year, this BESS would not have a grid connection for at least 10 years anyway!

3. The Development Plan comprises the North Devon and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031, of which Policy ST14: Enhancing Environmental Assets seeks to protect and enhance the natural environment of North Devon by ensuring that development contributes to protecting and enhancing local landscape character.  Enray attempt to justify the location of this proposal by claiming a lack of “intervisibility” between proposals which is simply not the case.  We benefit from expansive views to the north, south and west of our property and Webbery BESS and Bulworthy Solar and BESS would both be clearly visible from the same viewpoint

4. There is a well documented and significant fire risk associated with BESS installations.  Any application will attempt to downplay this risk but this proposal would be situated far too close to existing residential properties and businesses for there not to be a substantial and real risk

5. This application will have an enormous negative impact to the amenity of our property, Five Acre, and the field we own to the south of our property, the southerly portion of which sits adjacent to this proposal.  The southern portion of our field is currently used for 6 bee hives with plans to expand this to as many as 20 over the next few years.  Noise during construction of this BESS will disturb the bees, the result of which is likely to be them swarming and leaving our hives to find somewhere quieter to live.  The operational noise of the fans will have a similar impact and the electro-magnetic fields around the battery facility will interfere with the internal navigational functions of the bees, again causing the populations to weaken and potentially move elsewhere.   The viability of our bee hives will be decimated by this proposal and we will separately provide further detail on this.  We have an area in this field that we regularly use to sit and enjoy the surroundings, views and local nature and the amenity of this will be totally destroyed by the adjacent BESS facility if approved.  This will mostly be a result of the noise pollution it will create but it is also likely to be visible from this area as the screening proposed by Enray would be insufficient.  The noise impact to Five Acre and Webbery Cross Cottage will be detrimental to both our health and wellbeing and the noise impact assessment has not satisfactorily taken our property into consideration.  It is impossible to look at a decibel number and understand the impact this will have on us.  The frequency and type of noise is vital and the only way that can properly be understood would be to run a pilot scheme where speakers are set up around the proposed site and the volume and frequency of the BESS installation is replicated over  1 month period.  This would be inexpensive to run and would enable us to understand the aural impact of the proposal rather than just imagining what a number of decibels sounds and feels like.  This was suggested at the face to face meeting on 10th December and it was agreed that this would be a good idea, however it then became clear that the application had already been submitted.

6. The proposed scale of this development will intrude and be at odds with the immediate and surrounding landscape character, and the local built character. By definition, the industrialisation of the countryside on any scale, let alone 10 acres, is at odds with the Torridge and North Devon local plans.

7. It is our understanding that Enray Power have an option on the lease of the whole field situated to the south and west of our property.  We strongly contest the need for the this BESS in the first place but if it is determined that there is a valid requirement for this facility, it should be situated in the furthest south portion of the field, some 240m further south.  This would minimise any visual and noise impact to Five Acre and Webbery Cross Cottage.  Enray have said that they would not be able to utilise this land because of the existence of a scheduled monument (Iron Age enclosure and Roman marching camp) however it is quite clear from Historic England Maps that this monument is located in an adjacent field further west and not under the southern most portion of the leased land.  Moving the proposal here would reduce the possible smoke impact to Webbery Cross Cottage in the event of a fire and dramatically reduce the aural harm to Five Acre and Webbery Cross Cottage.  Were the BESS constructed here, there is a much increased chance our Honey Bee hives remaining viable, although we cannot be certain of this.  This also moves the proposal further away from approved applications 1/0840/2025/FUL, 1/0528/2025/FUL and 1/0935/2025/FUL

In summary:

• There is no need for this proposal from an energy infrastructure perspective

• It would be located far too close to existing residential properties and will have an unacceptable adverse impact to the amenity of the gardens and land of those properties

• It will potentially decimate an existing apiary causing financial harm and further reducing amenity of the owners land

• The application itself is riddled with flaws, mistruths and inaccuracies

• An appropriate and fair consultation period has not taken place

• The application would turn 10 acres of highly valuable and prime grazing land into an industrial complex in the middle of the countryside which would therefore be in direct conflict with the local plan

• This area already has what could be considered its fair share of renewable proposals and with each additional scheme approved, the landscape character we should be looking to preserve is further permanently damaged.