Club succeeds with an appeal to stop planning permission for the west London project that would power 600 homes

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

A proposed small hydropower project in west London has received a further setback, as court judges allowed an appeal by a club owned by Shell against the granting of planning permission to the site.

The project, at Teddington lock and weirs, would deliver enough electricity to power about 600 homes. It is proposed by a local cooperative group, run by volunteers, who have raised a potential £700,000 to build the plant, which the proponents say would not have any damaging effect on fish in the Thames or other local wildlife.

However, a local leisure club owned by oil and gas giant Shell objected to the project. The Lensbury club was formerly a staff club for Shell employees, and is now run by the company as a leisure facility.

The club appealed against the granting of planning permission in May after its proposed judicial review of the project was rejected by the high court.

Judges ruled on Wednesday that the club’s appeal can be allowed, despite the council having previously granted permission for the plant to go ahead, because of flaws in the reasoning behind the planning green light.

The dispute raises questions over the future of small cooperative renewable energy projects in the UK, which have already suffered from changes to rules in taxation and planning permission.

The Thames has long been a focus for renewable energy proponents, who argue that small hydroelectricity projects along the river could present a valuable form of renewable electricity, without harm to river ecosystems.

Shell said that a scheme harnessing hydropower in the local area could still go ahead, and the company and club would support such efforts, but it would require modification from the original proposal.

A Shell spokesman said: “Both Lensbury and Shell strongly support the principle of a hydroelectric power scheme at Teddington Weir, providing any such scheme properly addresses environmental and noise issues, flood risk during construction and impact on conservation areas.”

The company argued that the proposed scheme did not meet the required standards for planning applications of this type. The appeal court judges agreed.

“We fully support Lensbury’s desire to work with relevant bodies to agree a mutually acceptable way forward for the hydro development,” the Shell spokesman said.

It is still possible for the cooperative and Richmond council to take the case to the supreme court, but that would involve significant costs. Another possible way forward would be to modify the scheme in ways that would satisfy the objections raised in the appeal.

Lensbury Ltd, which operates the club, is a subsidiary of Shell Petroleum Company Ltd, and its directors are Shell employees, but carry out their duties independently from the parent company.