In response to questions about BESS
Fri, Oct 10, 2025, 3:54 PM
Dear Dr. Chandler,
Thank you for your email raising your concerns around aspects of the Kingsway Solar Farm and BESS project that has been submitted. I can confirm that I had a Teams meeting with the company development team where they talked through the project. They have employed a battery management specialist who is extremely knowledgeable in the safe application of BESS sites and is working within National Fire Chiefs Council Guidance. During the meeting, the plans shown presented us with no concerns, although we recognise that it is outline planning information and details around containers, battery types, etc. is yet to be fleshed out.
Before answering your queries, I must make you aware that Fire and Rescue Services hold no statuary powers for BESS sites and therefore any comment we make under planning is under guidance only and can be ignored (although it would be remiss of them to do so). Likewise, our engagement with them does not infer our agreement of any planning application and we have made this clear to them during the meeting.
Regarding your questions, please see response below.
The area of the BESS compound (~225 m x 150 m) would only be able to hold ~200 BESS containers of the given area (12.5 m x 3 m) if they follow the NFPA 855 recommendations for spacing and they do not stack the containers, and yet they are proposing to put up to 300 containers in that compound.
Spacing of containers is an ever-changing situation. This is to the extent that National Fire Chiefs Council guidance does not give fixed distances. These distances can vary depending on battery chemistry, fire resisting materials, misting systems, etc. It will be for the developer to evidence that the spacing they are suggesting will limit any fire to the container of origin. If they are unable to do this, they should then refer to NFPA 855.
Q1. Could you tell me if Kingsway sought further advice from your BESS working group before publishing their plans in the PEIR documents?
Because the entire development area is above a principal aquifer that provides drinking water to hundreds of thousands of people Kingsway have been advised by you and other consultees that they need to be able to contain and manage firewater water runoff. To quote from comments from the Environment Agency (EA):
There MUST be a sealed drainage system adequate to CONTAIN and manage ANY fire-fighting effluent or contaminated surface waters generated by a fire on the site to ENSURE NO discharge of polluted water to ground or surface waters bodies.
The emphasis is mine, but it’s clear that absolute containment of all contaminated fire waters is required. The importance of this has been confirmed by the report we received from an independent hydrogeologist that our Parish Council commissioned to advise on the suitability of our parish for a BESS.
As mentioned above, Kingsway did liaise with us prior to submitting their planning application. With regards to contamination of water supplies, we also raised the issue of a major aquifer in the area and the risk of contamination from firefighting run off. We were assured that the plans include the use of interceptors to catch and hold firefighting run-off on the site. It would then have to be removed by appropriate means at the end of an incident. In the event of an incident, we would deploy one of our hazardous material advisors whose role would include protection of the environment and liaison with the site owner.
Q2. Could you tell me the volume of on-site firewater that you will recommend needs to be provided at the Kingsway BESS compound in order to be prepared to cope with a BESS fire, and so what volume of firewater containment would be needed. Your scoping EIA comments suggest 180,000 litres of water would be needed for 2 hours of firefighting, but reports of other BESS fires seem to indicate that many more hours, possibly several days, have been needed in those cases. If that’s so wouldn’t the containment volume need to be unfeasibly large?
Firefighting tactics have changed over the course of the years in which BESS has become more prevalent. Whereas we would originally attempt to extinguish the fire with large quantities of water, it is now recognised that it is very difficult to extinguish lithium-ion batteries. Therefore, our priority is to prevent fire spread to other containers, and water supplies would prioritise the role of cooling of adjacent containers whilst allowing the fire container to burn out under control. This will mean the incident can be concluded quicker than attempting to extinguish it when it is likely to keep re-igniting. This approach means that less water is used than used to be the case, and a static tank of 180,00 litres is likely to see us through the incident. However, in the event of an incident where water is applied for an extended period, it would be the responsibility of the site owner to arrange for removal of water from the interceptor during the incident without allowing it into the environment. This is a conversation that would happen between the site owner and our hazardous materials advisor.
I hope you feel that your questions have been answered. We will be submitting our formal reply to the planning application in due course.
Kind Regards
Sean Hedger
Group Commander
Head of Protection and Chair of CFRS BESS working group
Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service
sean.hedger@cambsfire.gov.uk
Dear Group Commander Sean Hedger,
I am chairman of the Parish Council for West Wratting where Kingsway Solar Ltd are proposing to develop a solar farm and BESS. I am currently drafting our feedback to the Statutory Consultation for that project and would like to ask you for some advice.
I can see from their Preliminary Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) documents that Kingsway have “noted” the recommendations that you gave in your very thorough scoping EIA comments from 30/01/2025; however the PEIR documents contain very little information about their BESS proposal so that it’s difficult to see if their plans have been informed by any of your advice. In fact there are indications that they have not, and that they are progressing with planning the BESS before doing a proper risk assessment.
- They are proposing to locate the BESS compound just a few hundred meters from a class 1 drinking water Source Protection Zone (SPZ1).
- The area of the BESS compound (~225 m x 150 m) would only be able to hold ~200 BESS containers of the given area (12.5 m x 3 m) if they follow the NFPA 855 recommendations for spacing and they do not stack the containers, and yet they are proposing to put up to 300 containers in that compound.
Q1. Could you tell me if Kingsway sought further advice from your BESS working group before publishing their plans in the PEIR documents?
Because the entire development area is above a principal aquifer that provides drinking water to hundreds of thousands people Kingsway have been advised by you and other consultees that they need to be able to contain and manage firewater water runoff. To quote from comments from the Environment Agency (EA):
There MUST be a sealed drainage system adequate to CONTAIN and manage ANY fire-fighting effluent or contaminated surface waters generated by a fire on the site to ENSURE NO discharge of polluted water to ground or surface waters bodies.
The emphasis is mine, but it’s clear that absolute containment of all contaminated fire waters is required. The importance of this has been confirmed by the report we received from an independent hydrogeologist that our Parish Council commissioned to advise on the suitability of our parish for a BESS.
Q2. Could you tell me the volume of on-site firewater that you will recommend needs to be provided at the Kingsway BESS compound in order to be prepared to cope with a BESS fire, and so what volume of firewater containment would be needed. Your scoping EIA comments suggest 180,000 litres of water would be needed for 2 hours of firefighting, but reports of other BESS fires seem to indicate that many more hours, possibly several days, have been needed in those cases. If that’s so wouldn’t the containment volume need to be unfeasibly large?
I hope you can help me.
Regards,
Dr Simon Chandler
West Wratting Parish Council (chair)