Kingston ruled on 11 September that the 240MW Chessington battery scheme needs no environmental assessment, but wants bat and great crested newt evidence next.

Kingston Council has decided that a 240 megawatt battery storage site proposed on Green Belt farmland at Chessington does not need an Environmental Impact Assessment.

The screening opinion was signed on 10 September and issued on Friday 11 September. It is the council’s answer to the only question Eku Energy has so far asked it, and it went the developer’s way.

The decision letter ends in one line: “I confirm that an EIA is not required for the proposed development.” It is signed by Tim Naylor, Director of Planning and Regeneration.

We reported the request when it was filed. See Chessington battery storage: 240MW Green Belt plan filed for the site, the capacity and the appeal that settled the Green Belt argument 350 metres away.

What the council actually decided

A screening opinion settles one thing: whether a proposal is likely to have significant effects on the environment, and so whether the developer must produce a full Environmental Statement before the council will consider it.

The letter works through the test in three steps.

  • The scheme falls inside Schedule 2, column 1, paragraph 3(a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017, “industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water”.
  • Its site area is more than 0.5 of a hectare, so it clears the threshold that makes screening necessary at all. It does not fall within Schedule 1, where assessment is automatic.
  • It “would not trigger any significant effects outlined by schedule 3 of the regs and as such the proposal is not likely to have significant effects on the environment”.

That is the whole of the reasoning. The letter runs to a single page.

Timeline of the Chessington battery storage screening opinion: Lichfields filed the request on 3 August 2026, Kingston Council received it on 4 August, validated it on 20 August, the determination deadline fell on 10 September, the decision letter was signed on 10 September and issued on 11 September, and no planning application has yet been filed

The council met its own deadline. The request arrived on 4 August, was validated on 20 August, and carried a determination date of 10 September. The letter is dated that day.

The one condition attached, and why it matters here

The letter does not stop at “no”. It adds a warning about what any future application will have to prove:

“Notwithstanding the above, given the Biodiversity interests of the site any future proposal must be supported by robust and detailed information with particular regards to protected species bats and great crested newts of which activity of these species has been recorded in the vicinity of the site and adjacent and nearby Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation.”

Great crested newts are not a general caution here. When Kingston refused the nearest comparable scheme, at Land North of Rushett Lane in July 2024, failure to demonstrate no harm to great crested newts was one of the five grounds it gave. A planning inspector allowed that scheme on appeal in April 2025 anyway, on energy security grounds, having found the Green Belt harm real but moderate.

So the council has flagged, before the application exists, the exact evidence gap that cost it a refusal on the last battery site in this corner of the borough.

What is on the record now

The register entry for 26/01808/EIASCR carries three documents: the officer’s decision letter, a site location plan and the cover letter filed by the developer’s planning consultants, Lichfields, on 3 August. It lists no related planning case.

The council’s own constraints record for the land confirms:

  • Green Belt
  • London Gatwick safeguarding zone, 200 metres
  • a major accident hazard pipeline
  • the borough-wide smoke control order
  • the SB1 South of the Borough neighbourhood policy area
  • the Hook and Chessington special advert control area

None of those has been decided on. A screening opinion does not weigh Green Belt harm, openness, landscape, fire risk or traffic. Those arguments all sit in the planning application that has not yet been made.

What it means for you

  • The Green Belt question is still open. This decision is about paperwork, not principle. It removes the requirement for an Environmental Statement. It says nothing about whether the site should be built.
  • You cannot comment yet. A screening request carries no neighbour letters, no site notice and no press advert, and the register records none for this one. Those come with the planning application, and Lichfields has said one will follow.
  • Watch the ecology surveys. Bats and great crested newts are now on the record as the council’s stated concern. Whether the application answers it is the thing worth reading when it lands.
  • The register goes down on 22 September. Kingston’s planning site is advertising planned maintenance from 6am to 2pm that day, with commenting on applications disabled. Plan around it if you are working to a comment deadline.
  • Follow it here. We track new applications on our Kingston planning page, and any construction access from the A243 would show up on our Kingston roadworks and travel page.

Sources

  • Application 26/01808/EIASCR, Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames planning register, for the dates, the decision status of “Adopted”, the issue date of 11 September 2026 and the constraints list. The decision letter of 10 September 2026, signed by the Director of Planning and Regeneration, is published in full under the Documents tab as the Officer Report, and all quotations are from it.
  • Chessington BESS project page, Eku Energy, for the 240MW capacity.
  • Application 24/00756/FUL, Land North of Rushett Lane, for Kingston’s refusal of 16 July 2024 and the appeal decision of 3 April 2025, reference APP/Z5630/W/24/3354873.