Stephen Malkmus

Mr. Barry Robson.

Hopefully those clutching their pearls about a few youngsters running on the pitch come to realise that not everyone desires to share their own miserable, passionless philosophies

The old duffers in our support are desperate for lifelong younger fans to support the Old Firm because it helps them feel better about their own Glasgow leaning cowardice

Never forget: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/scot-gardiners-inverness-project-modelling-20788873 They're simply not smart enough to run a football club.

Yep, the buyer that was lined up pulled out due to the Council's intransigence. Another buyer will likely be found, but the terms for ILI/ICT may be less appealing.

Good luck with your future show on GB News.

The most relevant bias being displayed here is cognitive bias from people who understand that climate change is happening, but believe that an absolutely miniscule risk to themselves is worth scuppering this project over. The largest recorded wildfire in UK history occurred 26 miles west of Inverness just last year. That's a fire that we should be concerned about.

There are zero recorded instances of local residents in the vicinity of a BESS facility being injured by the facility catching fire or exploding. Even accounting for the massive number of houses relative to BESS facilities, it's still riskier to simply live in a house.

The only relevant comparison is that living in a house is statistically more dangerous than living close to a battery farm. Totally agree that ILI's application was clearly done on the cheap, however.

Of course one BESS on its own will make a minimal contribution to addressing climate change. The problem is that for almost every one of these applications a coterie of NIMBYs propagate the same scaremongering arguments which need to be challenged, otherwise none of these facilities would ever be built and we'd make even slower progress towards addressing climate change than we currently are. On the safety point: fire services in the UK attend 22,000 house fires in an average year. Should we stop building houses? Obviously not, because the societal benefit outweighs the negligible risk. Even for the Melbourne BESS you cite, which is an extremely rare incident, nobody was injured, as was the case at the only recorded BESS fire in the UK in Liverpool.

Another perspective: "The WHO conservatively projects 250,000 additional yearly deaths by the 2030s due to climate change impacts" https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health This image shows the number of BESS faciilities granted planning permission in the UK in the last five years. One event in Liverpool several years ago, where no one was harmed, is not an adequate basis for forming a judgment on the safety of these facilities. Nor is the list in the Word document which generally relates to very small scale incidents in countries where the facilities are less regulated than in the UK.

HSE, SEPA etc. would all regulate the site through their own regimes. The BESS would have to comply with the standards below. The officer presenting the application stated that he could attach a condition requiring a fire response plan to be submitted. The idea that BESS aren't subject to regulation and controls is fiction.

Absolute scaremongering nonsense. Would you be saying the same if they lived near a petrol station?

Which one did the 2015 Cup Final flag belong to? The only relevant matter is whether the Trust/Community Dept. will be benefiting from the battery application if it is approved. The Council accepted that they would be in their officer's report and at the last committee meeting. It seems unusual to me that some people here are desperate for them not to even have the chance of benefiting. Also, how do the Trust and its functions benefit if the club goes part time as a result of missing out on this investment?

The application form lists the company/organisation applying as being the club rather than the trust.

The IRA application is not independent of the club as it is being made in the Community Development Department's name (not in the name of the Trust). As the club state in the material for the battery application, the Trust will be a direct beneficiary of the funding the battery farm will deliver, in terms of having use of the new Hub, not through having money paid directly to it. In that sense it's not a benefit in terms of direct funding but a benefit in terms of having a facility to use. This is still a valid community benefit in planning policy terms. In terms of the club's finances, the club doesn't have to wipe all of its debt before it invests in new facilities. Investing in new facilities can ultimately ensure the club climbs out of debt by providing the basis for developing sustainable new income streams.

Interesting that people are disputing the benefit to the Community Trust when there is currently a planning application in with the Council - in the ICT Community Development Department's name - for a £700k development at the IRA playing fields. Which certainly won't be followed through if the battery application doesn't get passed.

If anyone wants to write in support of the application you can register and do it on the Council's website here. Ignore what it says about S36/S37 applications. https://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=RPE69PIHFYJ00

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inverness-caledonian-fc-baffled-by-councils-extra-time-on-battery-plan-vr86k0tjm

No it isn't. There are numerous examples across the UK in the past two years of battery storage developments being permitted on green belt land as decision makers have realised that the threat of climate change is more important than an arbitrary green belt/open space designation.

The 'ball' being the fact that planning policy at all levels is clear that grid scale battery storage is essential to meet Scotland's net zero targets. The Council being swayed by ten dog walkers who might lose 1/50th of their space for exercising their dogs and a community council living in fantasy land is embarrassing. If they refuse it and the decision is appealed, the Council will lose.

The hotel development needed planning permission, and this was decided by the south planning committee. If permission had been refused, there would likely still be a cultural use at the site. That is beside the point anyway - the Chair of the commitee is claiming that the battery decision isn't valid because not enough Councillors from Inverness voted on it. Yet he represents Fort William, and has been happy to vote in favour of the hotel development at the Ironworks and against the battery farm last week. I hope the club embarrass the Council over this, it's a shambles.

The chairman of the south planning committee is an absolute pillock. He wasn't concerned about being a representative from Fort William, rather than Inverness, when he cast the deciding vote to replace the Ironworks with a hotel.

@sheepslagger has issued a statement https://ictfc.com/club-statement-battery-farm-application-approval/

And that's The Malkmus Guarantee.