Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[Row S]

The nearest houses are about 300 metres from the storage compounds. The Travelodge is about 50m away. No objections from the nearest residents, office occupiers or Travelodge.

Lobbying does work in some cases but is normally done by the applicants (ILI not ICTFC).

[STFU]

10 minutes ago, Row S said:

The nearest houses are about 300 metres from the storage compounds. The Travelodge is about 50m away. No objections from the nearest residents, office occupiers or Travelodge.

Lobbying does work in some cases but is normally done by the applicants (ILI not ICTFC).

[+DoofersDad]

7 hours ago, Scotty said:

With the club coming out strong last week, and the weekend missive from the chairman urging all fans to contact their local councilors, I can't help feeling that all our eggs are in this one basket. That scares me a lot. 

 

At the last Club AGM, a combination of the BESS system and the opportunities resulting from the stadium being within the new Cromarty Firth Freeport zone were cited as being the things which allowed the accounts to be approved on a going concern basis.  In other words, these 2 factors were seen as crucial to the long term future of the club.

However, the Club Chairman told the recent Supporters Trust meeting that he was struggling to see any way in which the Club could possibly benefit from the Freeport status.  So yes, eggs very much in one basket.  He freely admitted that if the BESS project does not get the go ahead then we will be continuing to rely on the largesse of the Directors for a sizeable proportion  of the income required to keep us as a competitive full time club.  I'm not sure that the Club have any more rabbits they can pull out of their hats in order to diversify the Clubs income streams.  It's all very worrying indeed.

 

[Charles Bannerman]

On 11/18/2023 at 6:30 PM, DoofersDad said:

Thanks RiG.  Having looked up ICT Battery Storage Ltd at Companies House, I see the Directors of the company are Ross Morrison and David Cameron.  It is a company limited by share holding.  There is just 1 share allocated which is owned by the football club.  But this doesn't explain where the money is coming from.  It will not be  the club that is paying for all the capital cost of the development.  Presumably that is where ILI come in and they clearly will need a return on their investment.  

 

So where would this leave the club if the Battery Farm, like the Concert Company, were to go bust? In the case of the Concert Company, the technically separate football club took a large sum for stadium rent before the CC went bust, leaving local traders out of pocket. There is therefore also the concern that the CC’s demise left a lot of bad feeling among the Inverness business community.

So what’s the situation in the event of the collapse of the Battery Farm?

Also, how much vehicular traffic would a Battery Farm create, and might this, on the already extremely congested SDR, have been a consideration when planning permission was refused?

[Northern_jaggie]

Surely the Council will condition the consent rather than refuse it? All the conditions have mitigations which the club has addressed. If it’s refused, the appeal will surely be consented.

I really hope ICT succeed with this.  Clearly a lot of work has gone in behind the scenes which is to be commended. 

[wilsywilsy]

1 hour ago, Northern_jaggie said:

Surely the Council will condition the consent rather than refuse it? All the conditions have mitigations which the club has addressed. If it’s refused, the appeal will surely be consented.

I really hope ICT succeed with this.  Clearly a lot of work has gone in behind the scenes which is to be commended. 

Just because a lot of effort has gone into it, and some mitigations have been added belatedly, does not mean the council should approve it - even on appeal.

They have been trying to whore off bits of the golf course for years and have always failed. This latest attempt is not a routine planning application. I find it staggering that the club, and others, seem surprised they have met understandable resistance.

[Stephen Malkmus]

The key issue is the loss of designated open space and the implications that would have for other applications relating to housing that are coming forward for the old golf course. Even though planning applications should technically be considered on their own merits and therefore can't set a precedent, Council officers will still likely be thinking about how this will affect those other applications.

Noise is pretty much a non-issue: these facilities are being consented all over the country with acoustic barriers and mitigation planting which lessens the amount of noise and any effect on properties. The distributor road being so close means that noise is already present in the area, and noise from the battery facility would blend into this to a large extent. It's pretty shoddy that ILI didn't submit a noise assessment up front with the planning application, and only did so after the Council's Environmental Health officer asked for one. Nonetheless, the mitigation features could easily be conditioned as part of an approval, as the chairman has said. The non-expert members of the planning committee are more likely than not to refuse the application for this reason, however.

The other issues like biodiversity loss and drainage would be easy enough to overcome as well. It looks like ILI were caught on the hop by a change of planning policy relating to biodiversity in February, and then submitted a pretty poor quality report to deal with the issue (followed by the Council's ecologist being remarkably unhelpful, going by the correspondence on the website). Again though, if the council were being reasonable this issue could be overcome through agreements with officers.

Transport is not an issue as these facilities generate little need for trips other than during construction - and the distributor road is a perfectly acceptable construction traffic route. Impacts on property value aren't a planning consideration.

My suspicion is that Council officers are most concerned about the loss of open space and its implications for future development at the golf course, so they are trying to load up a refusal with as many reasons for refusal as possible to reduce the chances of an appeal to the Government succeeding. 

The real issue with the application that was submitted is a lack of a detailed planning policy assessment justifying the scheme, and that makes me wonder if ILI are treating this application as a low priority for whatever reason (probably as there's little profit in it for them).

The club must have had positive pre-application discussions with the Council, otherwise I'm not sure where their confidence and subsequent surprise stems from.

I reckon they'll actually have a pretty good chance of winning an appeal as the new National Planning Framework is very supportive of developments such as this, but that might take a year and will cost thousands if they want someone competent to handle the process.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Stephen Malkmus

[+DoofersDad]

Good post from Stephen.  I pretty much agree with that assessment.  It strikes me as strange that we have got to this stage and the Club are surprised at the Council planners recommending refusal.  I also would have expected that ILI would have had pre-application discussions with the Council which would either have led them to revising plans so that they satisfy the planners concerns, or to prepare a case as to why they disagree with the planners.  The objections do, however, seem very minor and one would have thought could easily be overcome with conditions attached to an approval.

I'm not sure that Ross Morrison's belated lobbying is going to help or hinder the case.  There is no doubting that a technology that makes a significant contribution to meeting net zero targets is to be welcomed and obviously having a steady and significant income stream coming into the Club would be great.  But the merits of the development (which are considerable) should be irrelevant with the decision being made solely in compliance with planning policy and regulations.   If I were a Councillor on the Planning Committee, I don't think I would take too kindly to have my mail box full of pleas to ignore the advice of the professional planners  because of the perceived benefits.  It certainly won't help the relationship between the Club and the Planning department.   It's a bit like having a goal being ruled offside and arguing with the referee that it should be awarded in spite of it maybe being marginally offside, because it was a good move and deserved a goal.  

I agree that the planners are probably most concerned about the loss of open space.  Again, one can understand that the project only impinges on a tiny proportion of the open space in and around the city.  However, if a precedent is set with this, the Council might find themselves under significant pressure to allow other projects on designated open space.

For the sake of the Club and all the good community work the Club does, I sincerely hope the project does get passed.  If it doesn't, I won't be too surprised.  If it doesn't, someone at the club will have some explaining to do.

Edited November 21, 2023 by DoofersDad

[tm4tj]

Watch the meeting

From 10:30 This morning

[Stephen Malkmus]

Application deferred to allow more information to be provided and a site visit to take place. Helpful.

Edited November 22, 2023 by Stephen Malkmus

[Row S]

Yes, I saw that. I got the impression that most councillors want to approve it but as the technical objections had not been addressed by the applicant they felt they couldn't support it today. Also now have time to explain the 'community benefits' (to ICT). Best outcome in the circumstances.

Edited November 22, 2023 by Row S

[wilsywilsy]

1 minute ago, Row S said:

Yes, I saw that. I got the impression that most councillors want to approve it but as the technical objections had not been addressed by the applicant they felt they couldn't support it. Also time to explain the 'community benefits' (to ICT). Best outcome in the circumstances.

The councillors certainly sounded like they had been buttered up. I noticed the burning eyes of the ICT board sitting in the gallery punching their palms to apply some final pressure on them to relent.

Amongst other things, the planners rightly pointed to the proposed category of usage being industrial (not compatible with surroundings) and the site being designated green open space as part of IMLDP2. The councillors were fishing for the category to be "softened" for this case and for a site visit to see the impact on the green space in-situ. One councillor was hilariously trying to describe the aesthetics as looking like a golf course maintenance shed - I have never seen a golf course with 3m high sheds and a footprint of a modern football stadium.

 

[Robert]

It sounds like this was the best possible outcome today.

The club and ILI now have the opportunity to thoroughly address the concerns and put the necessary mitigations in place so that the Committee feels minded to approve it.

The next meeting is on 12 December but the next one after that is not until February. 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Robert

[Jack Waddington]

Can only see a typical Neanderthalic response from the Highland Council. Google maps shows the former golf course is MASSIVE and has no development on it whatsoever, and I can't imagine HC are planning on a Central Park copycat any time soon.

Rather spend money on random crap like an unwanted wall in the river, but will happily turn down a proposal that, if expanded across the Highlands, can EASILY be one massive step towards Carbon Neutrality...

[wilsywilsy]

5 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Can only see a typical Neanderthalic response from the Highland Council. Google maps shows the former golf course is MASSIVE and has no development on it whatsoever, and I can't imagine HC are planning on a Central Park copycat any time soon.

Rather spend money on random crap like an unwanted wall in the river, but will happily turn down a proposal that, if expanded across the Highlands, can EASILY be one massive step towards Carbon Neutrality...

It's protected green space as per the well published Inner Moray Firth Development Plan, that, ya know..... folk considered as intelligent land investors might be aware of. That means it is protected from development and why all attempts to build houses here has always been rejected. I don't see it as "Neanderthalic" for the planners to point this out - they are doing their job.

 

[Jack Waddington]

4 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

It's protected green space as per the well published Inner Moray Firth Development Plan, that, ya know..... folk considered as intelligent land investors might be aware of. That means it is protected from development and why all attempts to build houses here has always been rejected. I don't see it as "Neanderthalic" for the planners to point this out - they are doing their job.

 

Aye but theres a mahoosive difference between building a brand spanking new housing estate, and hiding some shipping containers in the corner right at the edge of the area where you won't be able to see it unless you throw up a drone or specifically go looking for it.

I understand why there needs to be a green place in a rapidly expanding city, but there's not much alternative places to put this thing, and I can't imagine it'd be a popular idea to dump it in the middle of town or in a housing estate. The club and ILI have said that it'd be camoflagued to hell and back, and in a field where very few people would actually use it as a park, I can't imagine there'd be much of a kick in the teeth...

[Stephen Malkmus]

15 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

It's protected green space as per the well published Inner Moray Firth Development Plan, that, ya know..... folk considered as intelligent land investors might be aware of. That means it is protected from development and why all attempts to build houses here has always been rejected. I don't see it as "Neanderthalic" for the planners to point this out - they are doing their job.

 

It's protected from development unless either:

- it can be suitably demonstrated that the open space is not fit for purpose

- substitute provision will be provided, or

- development of the open space would significantly contribute to the spatial strategy for the area 

The applicant should have made the case that the development significantly contributes to the spatial strategy for the area by providing renewable energy infrastructure to support the creation of sustainable communities. 

Edited November 22, 2023 by Stephen Malkmus

[wilsywilsy]

Just now, Stephen Malkmus said:

It's protected from development unless either:

- it can be suitably demonstrated that the development that the open space is not fit for purpose

- substitute provision will be provided, or

- development of the open space would significantly contribute to the spatial strategy for the area 

The applicant should have made the case that the development significantly contributes to the spatial strategy for the area by providing renewable energy infrastructure to support the creation of sustainable communities. 

As the planners said today, it has to be "the right development in the right place" and they challenged the applicants to prove they considered, and ruled out, other sites first. I bet they didn't - they have probably just tried to use this land because David Cameron already owns it.

[Row S]

It was not so long ago that the Council was prepared to ignore its policy for open space protection to allow roads to be built (1) from the SDR Eagle roundabout into Drakies and (2) to wipe out a well established equipped play area on the long established Drakies buffer land to serve a spurious housing site south of the Police HQ. 

The large green shed shown in the photo in committee this morning is not a green keepers' shed. It is the Inverness Kart Raceway building, which was also built on the Fairways open space.    

[wilsywilsy]

20 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Aye but theres a mahoosive difference between building a brand spanking new housing estate, and hiding some shipping containers in the corner right at the edge of the area where you won't be able to see it unless you throw up a drone or specifically go looking for it.

I understand why there needs to be a green place in a rapidly expanding city, but there's not much alternative places to put this thing, and I can't imagine it'd be a popular idea to dump it in the middle of town or in a housing estate. The club and ILI have said that it'd be camoflagued to hell and back, and in a field where very few people would actually use it as a park, I can't imagine there'd be much of a kick in the teeth...

Other than the mahoosive housing estate you reference, the planners and council have also rejected at least one other planning application for small scale housing and chalet developments at this site for the same reasons.

I think you are missing the scale of this thing. 1.7 hectares is a big chunk of land being turned to heavy industrial use in a predominantly residential area.

[wilsywilsy]

14 minutes ago, Row S said:

It was not so long ago that the Council was prepared to ignore its policy for open space protection to allow roads to be built (1) from the SDR Eagle roundabout into Drakies and (2) to wipe out a well established equipped play area on the long established Drakies buffer land to serve a spurious housing site south of the Police HQ. 

The large green shed shown in the photo in committee this morning is not a green keepers' shed. It is the Inverness Kart Raceway building, which was also built on the Fairways open space.    

I'm not familiar with the Drakies development - that sounds like a crap outcome. But councillors need to feel the heat from residents when these issues surface.

For context, the Kart Raceway building is an indoor leisure facility that covers circa 0.2 hectares - this project is 1.7 hectares populated with 52 huge industrial containers and related transformers and control units.

Edited November 22, 2023 by wilsywilsy

[Jack Waddington]

8 minutes ago, Row S said:

It was not so long ago that the Council was prepared to ignore its policy for open space protection to allow roads to be built (1) from the SDR Eagle roundabout into Drakies and (2) to wipe out a well established equipped play area on the long established Drakies buffer land to serve a spurious housing site south of the Police HQ.

Only real differences between that and where the Battery Project will be are that, The Drakies Buffer is a well used area both by locals and that the bit behind the Polis HQ is still used as a farmers field, while the golf course is one giant nothing and The Buffer is also easily visible and accessable to the general public, compared to the former golf course which is entirely sandwiched by a housing estate and the treeline between the road and the driving range.

There's also the factor that the project is hugging the back of the Kart Center, and won't need to build a long, winding access road, and won't be taking up any land thats already built upon, frequently used by locals or thats been put aside for anything. Attempting to shut it down is a kick in the teeth for any attempt to bring the Highlands into Carbon Neutrality.

[Jack Waddington]

21 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Other than the mahoosive housing estate you reference, the planners and council have also rejected at least one other planning application for small scale housing and chalet developments at this site for the same reasons.

I think you are missing the scale of this thing. 1.7 hectares is a big chunk of land being turned to heavy industrial use in a predominantly residential area.

It's not residential at all lmao, if anything it's a small retail park, with a driving range and a go kart track, the nearest residents are over 200m away from the proposed site, its effectively hugging the backside of the kart track. They've said they'll do everything to hide it and make it blend in. Completely different story if the Cloud Factory was being relocated to Fairways, especially when the project causes no pollution in the slightest, so to label it as "heavy industry" is a bit of a stretch to say the least...

Edited November 22, 2023 by Jack Waddington

[Stephen Malkmus]

25 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

As the planners said today, it has to be "the right development in the right place" and they challenged the applicants to prove they considered, and ruled out, other sites first. I bet they didn't - they have probably just tried to use this land because David Cameron already owns it.

There's a site search document included as part of the application which says they'd been looking for sites close to the Inverness GSP substation for a couple of years before this site was considered. They ruled out the church next to the substation and sites near the Ness-side housing development for various reasons.

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

This is so much better than debating football.