Could Calderdale Council Face Legal Jeopardy From Battery Storage Plans?

CALDERDALE INSIDE OUT EXCLUSIVE: Complaint sparks council legal fears

EXCLUSIVE: Calderdale Council has received a formal complaint alleging that the current battery energy storage system (BESS) proposal at Holmfield may be part of a single development that has been split into two planning applications to avoid full scrutiny — a tactic sometimes referred to in planning law as “salami-slicing.”

The complaint, handed by an insider to Calderdale Inside Out, raises concerns that the Calderdale BESS (application 24/01306/FUL) and a parallel application submitted to Bradford Council (24/02801/FUL) represent two halves of a functionally interdependent project, with shared infrastructure, ownership, and phasing.

That claim is now attracting attention — not just from residents, but from legal observers — because if the Council proceeds with approval at planning committee, it could face significant legal risk and financial exposure. And let’s face it, the last thing Calderdale Council needs right now is a massive legal bill.

Here’s the problem

A Shared Project Across Council Boundaries

The Holmfield BESS in Calderdale would install 462 lithium-ion battery containers capable of storing and exporting 500 megawatts of electricity to the National Grid.

However, documents submitted to Bradford Council confirm that the point of grid connection for that side of the project is located within Calderdale. A letter from the developer’s agent, submitted to Bradford in March 2025, explicitly states:

“The proposed BESS will connect into the existing 33kV [line] south of the site… The point of connection will be in Calderdale.”

This suggests that the Bradford batteries depend on the grid infrastructure within Calderdale to function. A legal agreement in Calderdale’s planning file also confirms the route and point of connection into the National Grid.

If both sides of the project are required for either to operate, they may be considered in law as a single interdependent project.

Legal Precedent and Case Law

Calderdale Inside Out has been talking to legal experts and UK precedents are clear: there are established principles around the treatment of linked developments (such at the Holmfield site). In the 2019 case Wingfield v Canterbury City Council, the High Court set out the conditions under which two separate applications must be treated as one “project” for the purposes of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). These include:

• Common ownership or promotion;

• Functional interdependence (i.e., one cannot operate without the other);

• Whether each part has a standalone justification.

More recently, in Ashchurch Rural Parish Council v Tewkesbury Borough Council (2023), the Court of Appeal ruled that a council acted irrationally and unlawfully when it approved a road bridge without considering the full impact of the housing development it was meant to serve. The court found that public benefits were being counted, but associated harms were not — and that the council had failed to assess whether the project required EIA.

In short, the law does not forbid cross-boundary applications — but it does require local authorities to assess them holistically, where there is a clear link.

And in this case there is: common ownership; functional interdependence; and standalone justification is arguable.

What the Calderdale Council Planning Officer’s Report Says

The officer report for application 24/01306/FUL makes no reference to the Bradford application. It states that the grid connection works are not part of the application and will instead be secured under permitted development rights.

It also states that the development can be considered “independently”, and no Grampian condition has been recommended — a mechanism commonly used in planning to prevent development from proceeding until external dependencies are in place.

No Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out, and no formal cumulative impact assessment appears to have been undertaken to examine how the Calderdale and Bradford proposals might interact.

And that lack of cumulative assessment could create further legal problems for Calderdale, especially if a judge decides such an assessment is justified.

What the Complaint Says

The complaint received by Calderdale Council outlines what it describes as “salami-slicing” — the act of splitting one development into two or more parts to avoid triggering environmental assessment or deeper scrutiny.

It highlights:

• Shared ownership and access routes;

• Coordinated phasing and use of common infrastructure;

• Interdependence in functionality.

The complainant argues that failure to treat the two BESS projects as a single development could lead to a flawed decision and potential legal challenge.

The Cost of Legal Action

If the Council proceeds with approval and is subsequently subject to a judicial review, the potential costs could be significant.

Judicial review is a legal process that examines whether a public body — such as a local council — has acted lawfully. It does not consider the merits of the planning application itself, but whether the decision-making process was flawed.

Possible grounds for challenge based on Calderdale Inside Out’s investigation include:

• Failure to consider a material planning consideration (i.e., the existence of and dependency on the Bradford application);

• Failure to properly screen the development for EIA;

• Failure to assess cumulative environmental impacts.

If a judge agrees, they can quash the planning permission, requiring the council to go back and reconsider the application.

Defending a judicial review could cost the council £30,000 to £100,000 or more, particularly if it is required to cover the claimant’s legal costs.

The Council has discretion in how it makes its planning decisions. But the law requires that discretion to be used rationally, transparently, and with all relevant facts in view.

The presence of a complaint, the evidence from the Bradford application, and established legal precedent all suggest that proceeding in isolation could expose the Council to unnecessary legal and financial risk, potentially amounting to many thousands of pounds.

Whether that risk materialises depends on the outcome of the vote — and whether a future claimant decides to test the process in court. And correspondence supplied by our insider suggests a judicial review is very much on the cards if Calderdale Planning Committee approves the application on May 27^th.

Calderdale Council has been approached for comment.

---

Coming soon….

The Fallingroyd Files

Another Calderdale Inside Out exclusive: we go behind the scenes of a contentious Calderdale parking plan unveiling the truth behind the consultation.