The Boston Borough Council Planning Committee met on Tuesday 2 June 2026 to discuss a planning application for a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) at land east of Bicker Fen substation, Bicker Fen, Boston. The committee granted planning permission for the application, subject to conditions.

Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) at Bicker Fen

The committee considered an application for the installation and operation of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) with an anticipated import/export capability of 1.2 gigawatts at land east of Bicker Fen substation, Bicker Fen, Boston. The proposal includes up to 1,056 battery units, a substation, access works, landscaping, and biodiversity enhancements. The application was presented by Senior Planning Officer Emma Turvey.

The application was brought before the committee due to a significant number of objections received. Councillor Paul Locke, speaking as the County Councillor for Boston Rural, objected to the proposal, citing concerns about the loss of prime agricultural land, the industrialisation of the countryside, and the cumulative impact of energy infrastructure in the Bicker Fen area. He also raised questions about safety and regulatory uncertainty surrounding large-scale battery storage systems.

Chris McKerrow, representing the applicant Bicker Drove Limited, spoke in support of the application, highlighting that the BESS would be located adjacent to the existing Bicker Fen substation, making it a logical site for such infrastructure. He emphasised the economic benefits, including business rates and job creation, as well as the contribution to energy security and the transition to renewable energy.

Ward member Councillor James Cantwell also objected, expressing concern about the cumulative impact of multiple energy projects in Bicker Fen, the harm to the rural character of the area, and the potential impact on residential amenity, noise, and traffic. He urged the committee to draw a line on further development in the area.

During the debate, councillors raised numerous points, including the exact number of battery units, consultation processes, and the interaction of construction traffic with other local developments. Officers confirmed that final details would be secured through planning conditions. Concerns were also raised about the 40-year lifespan of the development and the decommissioning process, with officers assuring members that robust conditions would ensure land restoration. Fire safety, potential toxic runoff, and the cumulative impact of noise were also discussed, with officers detailing the safety management plans and environmental health assessments.

Despite some members expressing reservations about the level of detail available and the cumulative impact of development in the area, planning permission was granted. The decision was made subject to a comprehensive set of conditions, with delegated authority given to officers, in consultation with the Chairman and the Council's Legal Advisor, to review, amend and strengthen those conditions as necessary, and to incorporate any additional conditions considered appropriate, including those relating to noise mitigation, landscaping, traffic management, site safety, and decommissioning. The application was proposed by Councillor Stephen Woodliffe and seconded by Councillor David Middleton.

The meeting also briefly addressed the minutes of the previous meeting and public questions, with no public questions received.