STFU

2 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The original decision was taken by the South Planning Committee comprising councillors from south of the Kessock Bridge. Some of these failed to attend the site visit so were disqualified, some declared an interest and it’s said some couldn’t be @rsed, leaving 5 as against a quorum of 3.

The decision was then referred to the full council, also including members from 100+ miles away from Inverness and that attracted an attendance of 56, with no apparent concern about declaring interests or not having done a site visit.

The original planning meeting delayed a decision as one councillor asked if they could have a site visit.

A site visit was arranged, but there was no mention of it being compulsory However, at the next planning meeting only those who attended were allowed to vote and a there were a couple of other exclusions for anyone who was deemed to have a conflict of interest (e.g. the vice provost was excluded as she sits on the ICTWFC committee).

This left only 5 people eligible to vote.

Ahead of the full council meeting, drone footage had been taken of the area and distributed to councillors, which was deemed a sufficient substitute for a site visit.

Of the 74(?) members of full council, only those with valid and up to date planning training were allowed to vote.  I don't believe there were any other exclusions, so that left 53 to cast votes.

18 minutes ago, CELTIC1CALEY3 said:

The same South Planning Chairperson used his casting vote to close Everlast. Expect this to have a detrimental effect on Council and Health Board services. ICT FC lose their gym and pool rehab base. Councillors are not really accountable for decisions but that is how our democracy has evolved.

Not true.  They approved plans for the changes after Everlast Gym made the decision not to renew their lease.  Rejecting the planning application would not have kept Everlast Gym open, and would possibly have meant another commercial space laying empty.

3 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. 

Telling someone you don't think something is important is not addressing the issue.

1 hour ago, Satan said:

A lot would disagree with claims that it was intimidation, i bet some of these councillors love a good email, especially when it's to blow smoke up their arses.

Surely public officials with online  contact details should expect some correspondence from time to time...someone has to let them know how great they are ffs.

Or are we all snowflakes now?

Lots of people disagree that the world is spherical, doesn't make them right.

16 minutes ago, STFU said:

It feels like Gardiner and Morrison are getting off on the drama and fighting.

Let's not forget that we've seen this kind of aggressive reaction aimed directly at fans with comments about 'clickbait proponents' and the streaming fiasco where fans were told they didn't know what they were talking about, and exaggerating the poor quality of the auto tracking camera setup.

Sadly, they also duped many fans into joining them with the intimidation tactics in the mass emailing of councillors.  Some may prefer the political term of lobbying, but the very definition of that is 'influence by intimidation'.  If the implication of that 'lobbying' is the loss of a vote/support, it is then also a threat.

Just to be clear.  I'm not against lobbying, but I disagree with the claims that it's not intimidation.

From previous reports it sounds like home performances have been slowly improving.  Could do with it clicking tomorrow to give the team and fans a lift.

Might stick a tenner on the win and McKay to score.

It feels like Gardiner and Morrison are getting off on the drama and fighting.

Let's not forget that we've seen this kind of aggressive reaction aimed directly at fans with comments about 'clickbait proponents' and the streaming fiasco where fans were told they didn't know what they were talking about, and exaggerating the poor quality of the auto tracking camera setup.

Sadly, they also duped many fans into joining them with the intimidation tactics in the mass emailing of councillors.  Some may prefer the political term of lobbying, but the very definition of that is 'influence by intimidation'.  If the implication of that 'lobbying' is the loss of a vote/support, it is then also a threat.

Since we're all posting images....

1 minute ago, ymip said:

The loss of green space argument in an already massively over developed part of the city is the biggest load of bollox I've heard in my life.  

    

Being overdeveloped is even more reason to protect the green space, is it not?

44 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

Are you actually a fan? As I can’t understand any fan of our football club who values 2 percent of a patch of grass over £3.4 Million for the club. 
 

Given you’re such a cheerleader for the council im sure you also support those same councillors approving another hotel in place of the ironworks and spending money on a bridge to nowhere along the River Ness

This idea that everyone should support the club at all costs is the kind of knuckle dragging mentality mostly exhibited by fans of the OF.

9 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

I wonder if these supergeniuses on the Clowncil board remember that, outside of tourism (i.e. Nessiehunters) we provide the most to the city in terms of income due to the amount of away fans coming north, even moreso in the Prem days. Killing us off doesn't just affect us, but the entire city will suffer. Not many fans coming north stop over in Inverness going to Dingwall, and you'd be lucky to pack out the Nip Inn for a Clach home game.

We essentially cemented the city on the map back in 2000, relegation took a notch out of it, but going down again to the seaside leagues, and even going bust, is taking a hand grenade to it.

The city has nothing going for it outside tourism and going against one of the larger income providers is essentially suicidal

You are talking out of your hoop.

I think the right decision was made, but it saddens me that it carries with it such dire consequences for ICTFC.

We need to keep in mind that it is not the Highland Council that put ICTFC into the financial position it finds itself, and it would be a dereliction of duty for the planning to have been passed on that basis.

It's time that our CEO, Chairman and Board showed some accountability instead of resorting to the victim mentality we've been subjected to from them the last few years.

They chose to continue spending beyond the clubs means to chase promotion back the Premier League, have failed to achieve that, and have pinned our future on a series of failed initiatives.

Enough is enough.

Udjur has aggravated his previous injury in training, Carragher is a doubt, as is Shaw.

No sign of anyone returning from injury.

If any objections which have been raised after the deadline should be ignored, then does it follow that all emails to councillors in support of the project should also be ignored?

Hydro and gravity batteries are more effective, less harmful for the planet, and much safer than chemical batteries.

7 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

Slide 84, actually, but still at a loss as to why we're being shot in the foot when its right there, plain as day that they want to do it regardless. Surely it'd be far more logical to let someone else put in the graft and delegate the funds into other projects?

The paranoia continues.

I've seen nothing to say Highland Council are against Battery Storage or that they are against other people building them.  The main sticking point with the ILI/ICTFC one is that they want to locate it on protected green space in an area not zoned for industrial use.

One other thing, it literally says 75 in the bottom right of the slide.

2 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

The original decision hasn't been overturned? Great so the club can go ahead with the legal vote to approve planning permission I assume?

 

Interesting to note the councillor in question was excluded from voting as he couldn't be arsed to turn up to the meeting. But still voted to overturn the result when he didn't get the vote he wanted.

The lightlamp's on, but nobody's home!

I wonder how many of the several dozen (or more) drivers who don't park at the stadium to save themselves giving a fiver to the club have been writing to councillors demanding they back a project required to support the club because they're broke?

21 minutes ago, Satan said:

So the four councils who have joined up and come out with their PowerPoint against the application will be excluded from the vote?

Or is doing it via a 'spokesperson ' negate any particular councillors interest being called into question...

I believe it was 4 community councils, not Highland Councillors.  Entirely separate organisations/people.

4 hours ago, lightlamp2 said:

I thought they couldn't comment either. But I had a reply from one Kate Maclean who said she is yet to be convinced. Is that not prejudicial?

 

"

Thanks for your email. Your position is noted, and I am always grateful to hear the views of constituents.

As this is a planning matter, and despite not being a member of the planning committee, I cannot comment, and should not take a stance on this matter (it’s ‘quasi-judicial’). Councillors are expected to maintain an open mind on such decisions until they have heard both sides of the argument.

You will understand that this topic has attracted the voicing of some deeply-held convictions, which rightly demonstrates the passion with which people support their local football club. While I support ICT attempts to assure it’s future financial stability, and in general support the idea of storage batteries, I am not yet convinced that this is the correct site for such a development.

I look forward to the debate on Thursday.

Best wishes

Kate

 "

 

 

Also had one from Michael Cameron basically blowing me off

 

Thank you for your email, I have noted your concerns.

The Notice of Amendment is a perfectly valid, legal and democratic process which has been used numerous times in the past.  It does not mean that a decision has been reversed, it means that it is reviewed and is a way to ensure that better decisions are made since they have to be able to stand up to rigorous scrutiny.  The original decision was marginal, made by a very small number of councillors and, obviously, has a high degree of public interest.  I believe that given these circumstances, reviewing the decision is the right thing to do and is nothing to do with whether people liked the decision or not as you assert.

In case you are unaware, the planning function delegated to the council is "quasi-judicial".  
This means that councillors are not asked to give their opinion on applications, they are tasked with judging whether or not applications meet planning policies and regulations.  This may mean having to approve applications which you personally disagree with or reject applications which you support.

Applications have to be assessed against information presented to the committee which includes reports from the applicant, council officers, statutory bodies, other stakeholders and anyone who objects to or supports the application.  There are strict time limits for the submission of objections or support and these have to be based upon material planning matters, anything that is not material to planning cannot be considered.

For councillors, discussion of applications outside of committee, public expressions in support of or objecting to applications, and declaring how you intend to vote prior to any decision, is deemed to be prejudicial and results in the councillor having an interest in the application.  Councillors with an interest in an application must declare this and withdraw from the decision making process.

Lobbying councillors, for example by using a co-ordinated campaign of emails, can actually have a negative effect if councillors reply expressing an opinion (either positively or negatively) and such responses are effectively on public record.

Given the above, I will not be discussing the application from Intelligent Land Investments prior to the Highland Council meeting on Thursday, I hope you can appreciate my position and thanks again for taking the time to write.

Regards,

Michael

That second email that you think is blowing you off is the best response from any councillor I've seen yet.

He takes the time to explain why the decision is being reviewed, that the original decision has not been overturned, and the process that will now take place.  He also explains the dangers of following the course of action the club has encouraged.

Given the fact you state the other response could be prejudicial, do you really want councillors responding in support of the clubs position and being excluded from the vote?

4 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

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

 

No mention of it in the email they're asking everyone to send councillors.  Their 'manifesto' ahead of the vote, some might say.

4 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

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.

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.

13 hours ago, Yngwie said:

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

You're starting to look silly now.  Protection of green spaces is needed as part of the Net Zero ambitions.  I'm not against energy storage per se, even though lithium mining is extremely harmful to the environment, I just think there are safer, more appropriate places to site it.

Take the need for ICTFC to dig itself from the financial mess it is in out the equation, and very few people would give a toss that Highland Council might reject the planning.  So you're kidding yourself if you think that Net Zero is the club's primary motivator, or that the case they make for it is in any way robust.  They don't even have a climate action plan.

The claimed community benefit has also been shown up as a weak argument, and the club are unwilling to show how much of the £3.4 million will be swallowed by debt.  So much so that they've used legislative loopholes to prevent the issuing of the accounts for y/e 2023.

I'd maybe have a little more respect for the club if they just came out and told us that without the cash, we're fecked, instead of trying to present themselves as some kind Robin Hood meets Greta Thurnberg character who are going to save the people and the planet.

It's all about perspective.  Personally, I find the idea of finding something other than football to do on a Friday night more appealing than doing so on a Saturday afternoon.

2 hours ago, Robert said:

I assume Ferguson doesn’t rate him, or Brooks for that matter.

I was surprised Doran didn’t come on for the last 20 minutes or so. His composure and ability to keep the ball may have made a difference. 

Did Ferguson not say recently that many of the players on the bench at the moment were not 100% fit and would only be used in an emergency?