Yngwie

The Highland region has no shortage of green space! It's an issue simply because that’s how it was designated by the council in the local plan and those who are against it can use that, arguing that this plan is the bible and must not be questioned. If, however, the plan had allocated 2% of this site to a net-zero project it would still have been approved at the time, without doubt.

By way of comparison, the community council’s petition has reached 172 votes in the 3 weeks it has been online, 10 of whom allowed their names to appear publicly.

It’s a polite and very technical way of saying “get tae ****!”

Appropriate procedures and controls need to be in place for anything like this and it would make complete sense for any planning consent to have appropriate conditions applied. But as far as I can see it is all about risk management rather than fire services having a right to say no on principle to this or to any other application that has a fire risk. The NFCC’s BESS guidance says there should be a minimum of 25m between the BESS and other buildings/dwellings. ICT’s proposal offers 8 times that. The Community Councils must’ve just missed that part.

Where’ve you been, they’ve been making that clear for months!

Well their last Scottish Parliament manifesto had a huge section on net zero and not a single mention of green spaces.

I’m no nimby. There’s one of these being built within view of my bedroom window, about 200 metres away, and I didn’t object. The nearest house is actually about 80m away I would guess, yet it sailed through planning with no controversy and no objection from the community council. I’d probably rather it wasn’t going there, but it doesn’t bother me at all, and these things have to go somewhere, and if it wasn’t this then something else would be built there instead at some point that might be worse.

Disappointing but not surprising. Hypocritical NIMBYs, as I feared. The bigger concern is that when it gets appealed to the Scottish Government, they will be very reluctant to overturn the decision and thereby discredit and humiliate their own politicians. We are in worse trouble than I previously thought.

To what extent are councillors likely to vote as political blocks, as they normally do, or do they get a free vote on matters like this? It would be nice to think that the SNP and Greens, who form the government whose policy encourages approval of these schemes and is committed to net zero etc, will stick to their principles and not suddenly become NIMBY hypocrites. Likewise the other main parties are always falling over themselves to stress their green credentials.So it’ll be a walk in the park, right? If only…

If anyone can bring themselves to feel at all positive, we are now unbeaten in 5 and have 3 consecutive clean sheets.

FT 0-0, meh. I feel so sorry for our home fans this season, so little to cheer.

That’s interesting, I had initially thought that this vote was amongst all councillors. 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?

Of course, but I was referring to the quotes in the article rather than the slide the community councils had produced.

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

I note that you still haven’t denied involvement in it.

Exactly, how many people do they really represent. And what’s it got to do with 3 of those community councils, only one of them has relevance for this application. If they want to involve others then we can point out that community councils representing 60,000 local residents did NOT sign up to it! There is only one valid point which is the one the planning committee used in its recommendation to reject, the rest of it is irrelevance and misdirection. Sorry Wilsy, I know you and your pals put a lot of effort into it but it’s pretty feeble and does not stand up to scrutiny.

Shall we have a game of spot the difference? Read these extracts from the presentation against the project, then read Wilsywilsy’s posts on this thread. Uncanny! “Contrary to multiple statements made… the land is not owned by Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club. “In addition, the applicant emphasises that the ICT Community Trust is a main beneficiary, but fails to explain how ‘the financial benefits accrued from the development will be managed through the ICTFC Community Development Trust’. “Moreover, public statements from the applicant suggest that their primary concern is addressing the football club's debts.”

Dunc’s son of course. 6’5” target man, was on loan at Forfar but struggled to get game time there.

We’ve had Cameron Ferguson on trial for the last month, 20yo recently released by Newcastle. Well done to our scouting network for finding him!

Was there anything that changed your mind or will you still be voting against it next week?

It is, but worrying about where the money will come from in 4 years time compared to worrying about how we will pay the wages and suppliers this month?! I guess the idea is that we get 4 more attempts at getting back to the only league where we are viable as a full time club, and in the absence of a major new investment in that time, we then have to cut costs accordingly.

I can apply for planning permission for an extension to my house with the intention of selling it at a profit. I don’t need to disclose that in the application and I’m not being misleading. In the case of this project, the highland economy will still benefit from the project over its life, both from the facility itself and from the club and its offshoots spending the proceeds. It’s all just well written in a way to talk up the benefits, what else would you expect an applicant to do?

And all the indications are that they will, even if the actual amount is at the club’s discretion.

I don’t know what they said in the document or tonight, but the beneficial rights to and control over land can come in the form of full ownership, a lease, or another contractual arrangement so is it possible that you are making inconsequential technicalities that have no impact on the merits of the case?

No, as you have quoted they said a proportion of the benefits would go there. Not all of it. Not even the majority of it. They used a deliberately vague term rather than specifying a number.