DoofersDad

Different rules for different meetings it seems.  There appears to be plenty in all these machinations for the Club and Partners' legal team to explore in making their case for appeal.  

8 hours ago, lightlamp2 said:

The club did address the green space issue. It takes up 2 percent of the total space of an overgrown and unkempt field of grass. It also results in a net biodiversity gain. The judgement call was left up to councillors as to whether kids using their sledges in winter was more valuable than 3 and a half million for a local business, 125K business rates for the council. And contribution towards net zero. 

I'm sorry, but you are completely missing the point here.  The club only addressed this issue after the planning committee's 3-2 vote in favour had been taken back to the whole council.  At the time, I commented on this and said that the net biodiversity gain should be enough to justify the loss of the small amount of loss of green space.  I commended the Chairman on that more focussed and restrained statement.

The point is, that the club and its partners had not made the biodiversity argument earlier.  One of the earlier concerns of the planning department was concerns from the ecology officer about the loss of biodiversity.  That concern was very simply resolved by a commitment to plant more trees and shrubs. Problem solved with a 30 second thought process!  After a 30 month planning process for a development which they knew the planners would not support because of the green space issue, it simply beggars belief that the simple solution of planting a range of trees and shrubs on the site was not a key part of the original application.

Having said that, I absolutely agree that the sledging and dog walking arguments were incredibly weak.  Arguments around business rates etc were simply not relevant to planning and were an unnecessary distraction.  

1 hour ago, Robert said:

Interesting discussion about the impact of Ferguson on A View From The Terrace tonight. In brief, they felt we are existing in the Championship, playing defensively and not matching his personality.

Can’t argue with that. 

Maybe people are misjudging his personality?  The style of play we are playing is his style of play.  In his pre-match interview he said he wasn't going to change that.

2 hours ago, Yngwie said:

A few comments on your thoughts there.

1. They 100% did go through the proper process.

2. Pre-application consultation is optional. Had they done it it would have just delayed the application process, which in turn would have reduced the financial gain due to the terms of the deal the club struck with their partners. The sum has already dropped due to the delays.

3. The pre-application advice would simply have told them what everyone already knew, that the site is on green space and therefore the application could not be supported by the planning department. That’s something that is incapable of being changed.

4. I fail to see what could have been done that would have stopped Councillor Oldham being against the application and seeking to overturn the initial consent.

5. In terms of ‘recklessness’, filling out a few planning forms and paying a few fees in the hope of getting £3.4m is not reckless. It is valid to criticise years and years of spending in excess of our income which got into this financial black hole, but not to criticise a pretty low risk project that could get us out of it!

So they shouldn't have gone through the pre-application consultation because all it would have done is to tell them what they already knew, that the site is on green space and could not be supported by the planning department.  So, instead they are supposed to just submit the application in full knowledge that it is not going to be supported?  Hmm.

A "pretty low risk project"? When you know the Planing Department cannot support it?  I don't think so!

Back in November, the chairman posted a rambling video prior to the original planning committee meeting on 22nd November, in which he urged councillors to vote for the application.  He told them it "doesn't make any sense" to reject it and it would "be a travesty if it is refused".  He was prompted to do this after having what he referred to as the "devastating news" that the planners had recommended refusal on 4 grounds - 3 of which were easily resolvable.  The Committee subsequently deferred the decision in order that the applicants could provide the further information required to satisfy the planners concerned.  

In his video, Morrison stated that there had already been a two and a half year planning process, so I really don't think going through the pre-application process would have resulted in delays.  To the contrary, having engagement with the planning officials would surely have flagged up the issues which resulted in a delay to the application and inconvenience to the Council.

The other thing that is evident from this is that after 30 months of planning, they simply arrogantly assumed that because the BESS scheme would make such a positive contribution to net zero targets, this would override any objections about the loss of green space.  It would appear that there had been no discussion with anyone at the Council as to what might be required to overcome an issue which, apparently,  requires the planning department to recommend refusal. Whilst Morrison is not using any belligerent language in this video, being told it would be a travesty if the application does not get approval will also not have gone down well with Councillors.  People want to be persuaded by reasoned argument; not lectured to.

Had there been better engagement with the Council and a case presented which robustly addressed the green space issue, this application could have sailed through in November.  Instead it may well not get the go-ahead at all.

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

Some of that criticism is somewhat unfair and overlooks the fact that the club went through the proper process got it through planning permission, they did it. Nobody could have predicted the highly irregular manoeuvre that happened next. 

But they didn't really go through the proper process if they didn't use the Council's pre-application consultation process.  This might have allowed them to fully address the issues of concern and have the application go through with a "better look" which would not have triggered the subsequent process.  The subsequent process might be very unusual, but I assume it is a legitimate one or else the Council officials would not have allowed it to be used.  No doubt the club will, quite rightly, take legal advice on this.

Whether it got through the planning committee vote or not is actually not really relevant in terms of judging how the club behaved.  Clearly the application had some issues associated with it and there was a significant risk it would not go through the committee and get planning permission. They put the application in knowing that it was on protected green space, so, of course there was a risk.  The club put the future of the club against that risk and that, to my mind, was reckless.  

It would still have been reckless had they won the vote yesterday.  If you staked your household's life savings on an even money favourite at Cheltenham, then win or lose, it would still be a very reckless thing to to.  If you are going to stake all your savings on something, then you need to be like Putin in today's election and get all the necessary arrangements in place to make sure you do win.  The club and its partners failed to do the necessary work to ensure the application's smooth progress and then reduced the chances of it going through subsequently by antagonising the very people they needed to persuade.

I should add that I am in no way defending the elected councillors here.  It does appear that there are some who have some kind of agenda.  Others on both sides of the argument could barely string two words together and were utterly incapable of making a coherent argument to support their voting intention.  The whole episode is just a shambles all round.

Can I suggest sticking it on Mckay instead?

Chairman Ross Morrison made the following statement to give fans an update on the week’s events.

“The club notes with bewilderment and disappointment, yesterday’s refusal of the ICT Battery Farm planning application.”

“Without going into everything that happened, it was an especially mystifying decision given that no new evidence was provided which was worthy of overturning the previous progressive and lawful vote in February to grant us planning. We can however confirm that we are appealing the decision to the Scottish Govt.”

“While this bizarre decision to overturn our previous successful planning application was a set-back to our robust and long term business plan, we will consolidate and pull together as a Board and a club as we have done many times in our history both on and on the field.”

“We want to thank the hundreds of Caley Thistle fans and the businesses and organisations who have been entirely supportive in our quest to improve the club’s financial model and the city’s energy security. “

“On behalf of the Board and as we move into our historic thirtieth year and a crucial end of season period, we need to show that by sticking together and sticking to our values, by backing Duncan and the team, nothing can stop us getting to where we want to be this season and in our next 30 years.”

#TogetherNess

I understand the frustration, but it is this type of confrontational language which stirred up the opponents of the scheme in the first place.  It should be noted that when the application was originally submitted, the Community Council within which the site sits, did not even bother to respond to the application despite being directly consulted by the Council.  That lack of response is probably a much better reflection of the level of concern of local residents than we were led to believe yesterday.  It is only when the club came out with all guns blazing that any meaningful opposition and safety concerns emerged.  

The applicants had satisfied the planners on the initial planning concerns and it was only the green space issue which was outstanding.  My view is that the response to this concern, that the planting of trees and shrubs would both increase the biodiversity and carbon capture of the site, would have won over sufficient councillors to get the application through.  It was the CC's very belated concerns regarding safety which probably tipped the vote the other way.

Then, of course, there is the point that the applicants chose not to use the Council's Pre-application Consultation Service.  Had they done so, they might have had a better understanding of what the potential obstacles were and therefore submitted an original application which addressed those concerns.  It might then have got approval without all the rancour and controversy.

Given that this whole episode is one massive own goal by the club, I would have hoped for a bit of humility and contrition in this statement.  Sadly, it is not to be and it is all getting a bit embarrassing.

HT. 1-0

FT. 2-2

ICT.   Samuel

Ayr. Dowds

Crowd. 2064

1 hour ago, Jack Waddington said:

Think there's more fear and alarm at the clownncils incompetence. We all saw the outburst when Cllr MacPherson called the big dogs out on their previous failures elsewhere, and we all saw that not many of them did their job with the "kids sledge there" argument.

Just one of many, MANY, cockups that the Highland Clowncil have caused, and I can't imagine many will be best pleased with all the well documented drama that unravelled on the live stream.

Money burnt on a daft river circle, the Academy Street fiasco, the Longman and Inshes Roundabouts, the potholes, Invergordon Academy, the Ironworks, the list keeps piling and thats just the start of it.

Like the club, they need a shakedown from top to bottom, and weed out the muppets.

The problem with this shower of Councillors is that we, the people, put them there.  This is what happens in a democracy when more than half the people don't bother to vote and most of those that do, simply stick their cross against the names of people who are aligned to the voter's preferred political party.  We then go and vote for them again at the next election because we haven't clocked that these are the very people who voted for for all the things we thought were nonsense.  Councillors then claim they have had a resounding endorsement from the electorate.  The muppets are there because we don't take our democratic right to vote seriously enough.  

I find it disappointing that the Club have not put out a statement regarding the planning decision.  The decision was made on Thursday morning and they have had plenty of time to put out a holding response.  Obviously they need to go away and have a serious assessment of where we are financially and what the prospects of an appeal might be and that takes a bit of time.  But a simple statement of  disappointment, thanking fans for their support in this matter and a promise of a more detailed statement to follow could have been sent out within the hour.  Clearly fans are worried about the future of the club and deserve a little bit of consideration.

Gardiner has found the time though to sound off to the "Courier" with further inflammatory language.  He refers to "clearly unjust nonsense" and to "insidious behind-the-scenes goings-on from certain councillors".  He may have a point, but someone in his position needs to use more measured language.  

Hopefully the club will now take up the Supporters Trust offer of engagement.  The club needs all the friends it can get at this point and it needs its supporters like never before.

We'll be fine - I looked out my old boots this afternoon and freshened them up with some dubbin.

2 hours ago, RednBlackComeback said:

New site for the Battery Storage ? https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/former-inverness-college-site-sold-to-local-businessman-345039/

 

Very interesting.  Surely more than a coincidence?

I watched the latter half of the "debate".  Thanks, Fraz, for posting the link.  It is a long time since I've watched a Council debate and I have to say that whilst I was not expecting a high standard of debate, I was appalled at just how awful it was.  You get better quality and better informed debate in any pub every day of the week.  The application met all the planning requirements and satisfied the Council's professional planners except for the fact that the site occupied a tiny part of designated green space.  The club argued that the area of the green space concerned was insignificant and that its loss was more than mitigated for by planting which would have increased both biodiversity and carbon capture.

Having said that, it should never have come to this.  No doubt our Chairman and CEO will be raging about the injustice of it all, but the fact is, they concocted a plan which involved siting an industrial development on a site designated as green space in an area where there is no other industrial installation.  Seemingly, they have done this without seeking pre-application guidance from the Council and arrogantly assumed the plan would be accepted.  They also failed to take into account the record the Council has for dreadful planning decisions.  When it seemed the application might not be approved, they then launched an ill conceived campaign focussing on things which were completely irrelevant to the planning application.  They did this in an aggressive and bullying manner and clearly antagonised a lot of people as a result.

If an appeal fails, then the future for our club is grim.  And it is our club, the fans' club. It doesn't belong to the Board. Yet they have recklessly staked the future of our club on a poorly managed development proposal which has nothing to do with football.  You might have thought they would have adopted a more considered and consultative approach following the problems encountered with the Concert Company idea.

Terry Butcher will be a guest of the club on Saturday.  When he left us just over 10 years ago, we were sitting 2nd in the Premiership.  Who then, would have thought we would be where we are now?  What an absolute shambles we are in.

What is it with our club and injuries?  Add a keeper and you could make a decent starting Xl with those who are currently sidelined.   We seem to have had more than our share of injuries over a long period of time.  It seems we are taking on players with genuine potential but who also have a history of being a bit injury prone.  On the plus side, we have looked more defensively solid of late.  Carragher being a doubt is a concern for our vital game on Saturday, because he has looked good.  But we do have a big squad at the moment and will be able to put out a decent side each week.  

However, it may be off field issues which have the biggest bearing of where we end up.  If the planning application gets the green light, then there is the prospect of the biggest cash injection in the club's history.  With that would come the prospect of players the club wants to keep being offered improved contracts.  It will also be a spur to players more generally with those wanting to stay trying to persuade the club that they are worth keeping.  It would provide a much needed feel good factor around the club, hopefully resulting in a better home game atmosphere.  

It is so close and competitive in this division.  Potentially we could have one or more teams who on the last day of the season could, depending how results go, find themselves either in the promotion play offs or the relegation play offs at the end of the day.  In the circumstances on and off the field, I will be delighted if we finish in 8th.

3 hours ago, snorbens_caleyman said:

Dougal seems to be carrying a long term grievance

I thought he had been out on loan to County!

Terry Butcher is a guest at the stadium on Saturday for the game against Ayr, so I'll take a 7-0 win and then onwards and upwards from there.

The Community Councils need to provide some evidence to support their statement that the NFCC guidance makes it "irrefutably clear" that the site "has multiple unresolvable safety issues".

1 hour ago, STFU said:

It's worth going and watching the video from the last planning meeting as they do talk about the fire risk aspect.  It's something along the lines that there is no guidance for fire assessment of battery storage in Scotland, so planning couldn't be refused on that basis, but the SFRS would need to approve it as a condition attached to the consent in the same way they would any other structure.

Thanks.  This illustrates my point about the confusion.  You suggest the discussion at the meeting that there is no guidance for the fire assessment of battery storage in Scotland, but that is contradicted by the Community Councils who base their objections on BESS site guidelines from the National Fire Chiefs Council.  The NFCC is a UK wide body, but in any case, it is complete nonsense to say that just because there is no guidance available you can't refuse an application.  The person responsible for providing fire safety advice to the Council has a professional responsibility to use whatever sources are available in order to give the best advice possible.  If consent is given, of course it is likely to be subject to conditions and inspection prior to operations starting up, but giving consent means that, subject to conditions, it is considered safe.

23 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

the Community Councils state: " The BESS site guidelines from the National Fire Chiefs’ Council make it irrefutably clear that this steep site and planning application for an industrial chemical energy storage site has multiple unresolvable safety issues."  That is strong stuff.  But the club's statement states: "Fire risk etc is not a material planning consideration." and "The Head of Protection and Preparedness for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service confirmed they had no issues with this application."  

Further to my earlier post, I have gone on the Council website and explored the documents associated with this planning application.  None of these documents appear to include any professional advice around the fire risk.  There is a record to say that the Scottish Fire and Rescue service were sent a consultation request on 21st September 2023, but there is no record of any response that I can see.  This raises a number of questions given that the Community Councils are saying that NFCC guidelines "make it irrefutably clear" that there are "multiple unresolvable safety issues", whilst the club chairman states that the SFRS have confirmed they have no issues with the application.

Has the Council actually received any advice from the SFRC?  If so, what is that advice and why is it not available along with other the other advisory documents?

If the Council has not received any advice from SFRC, why have they proceeded with the process without advice on an aspect which is a well recognised potential hazard with this type of installation?

If the club chairman has confirmation from the SFRS that they have no issues with this installation, can he put a copy of the relevant communication in the public domain?

It should be noted that when the council planners recommended rejection of the application back in November, they gave 4 quite separate reasons, none of which related to fire safety issues.  Perhaps that was simply because they hadn't actually considered that aspect.

Not much to get excited about.  Missing having either Shaw or longstaff.  Kerr was outstanding at winning the ball, often nicking the ball off an opponent who thought he was receiving a comfortable pass.  He seems less able to find a telling pass but that may be partly due to a general lack of movement in front of him.  Lawal also showed some real talent.  He's got quick feet and looked the most creative of the midfielders on show.  I suspect Pepple's strength is in the air, but he was being played in with balls that would have been much better suited to the pacier Austin Samuels.  The lads need to look to shoot more often but you can't fault the effort.  They deserve our support and need the fans to get behind them, especially at home.

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

What constitutes a disqualifying interest - having attended ICT matches? What about councillors who might have an affiliation with a rival club who would be beneficiaries from our demise, going part time or having to shut the youth set up?

That's a good question but I don't know the answer.  It was one of the issues with the original vote.  Certainly shareholders and season ticket holders were seen as having an interest.  One would hope that all councillors representing Inverness wards would consider themselves as supporters of the City's largest football club even if only on the basis of the fact that it brings revenue into the area.  It would be a complete nonsense to disqualify councillors from voting just because they are supporters.  Indeed given the nature of the football club, even being a shareholder is not really a relevant issue as there will never be any financial return on the "investment".  Support for other clubs should not be an issue as it is often argued (but not by Charles) that having 2 senior teams in the area provides healthy competition.

 It seems that certain people in the Council want to prevent local Inverness Councillors from voting and then, in the next breath, complain that the lack of local Inverness councillors voting invalidates the vote!  

ICT V Highland Council.  The winner will be the one that scores the fewest own goals.

2 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

No, it gives the views of one person, an anonymous spokesperson.

Which other people on their Community Council and 3 other Community Councils have signed up to and put those forward as representatives of the Communities they serve.  There are several democratically elected representatives who need to be able to justify their actions to the electorates they represent.

I'll be heading down too.  I'm not going with much enthusiasm or expectation, but you have to endure the grim times to fully appreciate the successes when they come.

It was the planning department that recommended rejection on that one point Yngwie refers to, and the planning committee which decided to reject the recommendation and approve the application.  Now that the Council have decided that all councillors with planning training and no disqualifying interest should make the decision, it is open to them to reject the application on any issue they consider relevant.

For instance, the Community Councils state: " The BESS site guidelines from the National Fire Chiefs’ Council make it irrefutably clear that this steep site and planning application for an industrial chemical energy storage site has multiple unresolvable safety issues."  That is strong stuff.  But the club's statement states: "Fire risk etc is not a material planning consideration." and "The Head of Protection and Preparedness for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service confirmed they had no issues with this application."  

These positions are polar opposites.  If I were a Councillor charged with being part of the decision making group, I would want clarification here.  One assumes the Council has received formal professional advice and that this provides detailed reasons why the potential risks identified in the NFCC's guidelines are not such as to warrant rejection of this application.

If I was a Community Councillor I would also wish to see the local advice and a site risk assessment before signing up to such an uncompromising statement saying that the site has "multiple unresolvable safety issues".

I don't know what professional advice has been given.  What I do know is that there are people on one side or the argument or other and maybe, both,  who are making strong statements either with no evidence to back them up, or knowingly contradictory to the evidence.  I suspect we will hear a good bit more about this before the Council make their final decision.

HT. 0-0

FT. 0-2

ICT. Mckay

Opp. Todorov

Crowd. 1911