Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[wilsywilsy]

6 minutes ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

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.

I suspect the planners didn't find that very convincing: "We asked the minister for his land, he said thou shalt not. So we looked at a wee ground switcheroo for some allotments with the church land and the minister said thou shalt not. Tulloch were already milking the arse out of the other land around the GSP and we.... sorry they.... said the land was unavailable..... so what else could we do except choose Fairways".

[Jack Waddington]

9 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

I suspect the planners didn't find that very convincing: "We asked the minister for his land, he said thou shalt not. So we looked at a wee ground switcheroo for some allotments with the church land and the minister said thou shalt not. Tulloch were already milking the arse out of the other land around the GSP and we.... sorry they.... said the land was unavailable..... so what else could we do except choose Fairways".

So if I'm understanding this right, you're against a major investment for the club, that will provide us with a future for the forseeable future, which also benefits the local communities and the greater Highlands, not just in footballing terms, but with clean and renewable energy because you are wanting a field (that you can't even see from any surrounding road or footpath) to look like...a field...while also going off on a tangent to assume that they breezed over all other potential (and very limited) sites within city limits, just cos someone with links to the club happens to have land ownership?

[wilsywilsy]

40 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

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...

Super - I'm glad we agree that it's not an industrial area.

[Jack Waddington]

2 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Super - I'm glad we agree that it's not an industrial area.

Exactly, cos its a commercial area, which, as far as I'm aware aren't under the same noise pollution restrictions as there would be in a residential area, which everyone at the club and ILI have opted to go above and beyond to mitigate as much sound as feasibly possible, not to mention the fact all the businesses nearby have been consulted on the project with no objections, and the nearest houses are outside the area affected by noise pollution if it was just going to be plopped down with no noise barriers.

[CaleyCanary]

Following this deferral I'd like to think common sense will prevail and the project will get voted through by the cooncillors after the site visit and more information around mitigations is forthcoming. The relationship, however, between planning committees, council votes and common sense rarely seem to go hand in hand...

[wilsywilsy]

39 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

So if I'm understanding this right, you're against a major investment for the club, that will provide us with a future for the forseeable future, which also benefits the local communities and the greater Highlands, not just in footballing terms, but with clean and renewable energy because you are wanting a field (that you can't even see from any surrounding road or footpath) to look like...a field...while also going off on a tangent to assume that they breezed over all other potential (and very limited) sites within city limits, just cos someone with links to the club happens to have land ownership?

Hmmm no, that's not what I said. I am pointing out that it was perfectly reasonable for the council planners to reject this despite the frantic and desperate last minute club lobbying with sound bites about the equivalent of planting one million trees and existential financial threats. I can step back if you prefer an echo chamber where everyone's shouting "council neanderthals, caley directors good guys".

To answer your other new points: has anyone even seen credible financials that would backup the claims this will save the future of the club? Like the concerts and free ports? It's not guaranteed to be clean or renewable energy that these batteries will store (and they are toxic as f*ck and hugely energy intensive to mine/make). Again, labouring the point, it maybe a field but it is part of protected green space that is surrounded by residential, office, and leisure - this is an indisputable fact.

Lastly, it is not going off on a tangent to question the attempts to find other sites - it was raised by @Stephen Malkmus so I responded. The document is weak IMHO and the planners effectively called it out as such. 

Edited November 22, 2023 by wilsywilsy

[CaleyCanary]

7 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

The document is weak IMHO and the planners effectively called it out as such.

You can't really argue against that statement.

I think most of us feel it is a worthwhile and beneficial project for the wider community in general and for the club's finances in particular, but I don't think there's much doubt that it seems to have been a poorly presented proposal.

[Jack Waddington]

14 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

Like the concerts and free ports?

Neither of those are/were controlled by the club. ICTCC was created as a company just to try and make a wee bit off of making the stadium the cities primary concert venue, as opposed to a roundabout of The Bught, the Aquadome, Northern Meeting Park and ourselves, and lessons had been lost as it had been quite some time since the concert before it. As for the Green Port, thats not got anything to do with the club, and is only because we're in the Harbour/Port Area and have been included as we are one of the bigger companies in the area.

[wilsywilsy]

20 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Neither of those are/were controlled by the club. ICTCC was created as a company just to try and make a wee bit off of making the stadium the cities primary concert venue, as opposed to a roundabout of The Bught, the Aquadome, Northern Meeting Park and ourselves, and lessons had been lost as it had been quite some time since the concert before it. As for the Green Port, thats not got anything to do with the club, and is only because we're in the Harbour/Port Area and have been included as we are one of the bigger companies in the area.

My point was that we have to at least consider objectively questioning the bold, yet somewhat amateur (see youtube video), claims from Gardiner and Morrison about this project and how it finances the club. They had their finger prints all over the mismanagement of the concert debacle and were excited puppies about the free port. They have chipped away at their own credibility.

[Satan]

I'm just shocked we haven't greased the wheels of progress with a good old bung.

Sorry, 'developer contribution', as they are known in the building industry when re-zoning or deferring on affordable housing is required. 

Whatever happened to the playing fields and playpark on Balloan Road...

...certainly wasn't zoned for residential development,  but that has all but disappeared under new housing because council owned land can be used for profiteering, apparently. 

[ICTPaisley]

3 hours ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

This is so much better than debating football.

So good we’ve got new members joining just for the batteries.

[Satan]

6 minutes ago, ICTPaisley said:

So good we’ve got new members joining just for the batteries.

Should we 'charge' them...

[Scotty]

So long as they make a positive contribution and bring energy to the site it all good. Dont want things to go flat

[Charles Bannerman]

Everyone will just have to hope that these difficulties are not “terminal”.

[STFU]

2 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

Neither of those are/were controlled by the club. ICTCC was created as a company just to try and make a wee bit off of making the stadium the cities primary concert venue, as opposed to a roundabout of The Bught, the Aquadome, Northern Meeting Park and ourselves, and lessons had been lost as it had been quite some time since the concert before it. As for the Green Port, thats not got anything to do with the club, and is only because we're in the Harbour/Port Area and have been included as we are one of the bigger companies in the area.

Tell me you base your world view from information on the ICTFC Twitter feed without telling me you base your world view from information on the ICTFC Twitter feed

[Robert]

The club has issued a statement on today’s planning deferral. Perhaps trying to build bridges after the recent lobbying:

https://ictfc.com/club-statement-18/

[Charles Bannerman]

Could anyone fill in exactly how this Battery Farm plan will operate?

Who will manage and operate the facility on a day to day basis? Who will physically oversee construction? Who will ensure that there is a market? Where is the set-up capital coming from? In practical terms, what is the nature of the link between the football club and ILI? What’s in it for ILI? When would funds be expected to arrive with the club? What does the club have to do in order to qualify for revenue from this facility? What are the projected profits? What’s the level of risk? If there are losses, who is liable and what would the implications be for the football club?

These are not hostile questions in any way. It’s just that, as a shareholder  in ITandCFC, developments over the last week have led me to realise that I know very little about this project, which it’s hoped will revolutionise the football club’s finances.

[STFU]

The recommendation to take pre application advice from the planners was not taken up by ILI/ICTFC.

Naive, arrogant or both?

Having watched the meeting, I'm not convinced the decision will end up going in favour of the club.

When all is said and done, the application is to put an industrial operation on a protected open green site and all the noise mitigation and camouflage in the world isn't going to change that.

A decision to allow it regardless isn't a precedent that council will want to set unless there's wider reaching benefit which can also be placed as a condition on future applications of a similar nature.

A friendly councillor has managed to kick the can down the road by asking for the deferment, even if he also made it obvious that was primarily to buy time for ILI/ICTFC and not so much for the stated site visit.

[+DoofersDad]

I think the fact that the Committee did not decide to pass it with conditions attached indicates they were minded to refuse it.  

Planning decisions should ensure all planning regulations are complied with.  It sets a dangerous precedent if projects which do not comply are accepted simply because the project is seen to be important for the local community.  I would imagine the majority of the Councillors would, in principle, want to see this project succeed and therefore the deferment period would be used to explore how the current barriers to approval can be overcome.

I suspect the biggest problem is that the site is on land designated as open space.  Unless there is relevant precedent, one possible solution may be to re-designate the site and maybe a bit more of the old golf course site as well.  This, presumably would require public consultation and could be a lengthy process, especially when the prospect of appeals are considered.

Whatever the outcome, this whole episode represents another example of poor communication by the club.  It is also another example of a potentially good idea not being actioned competently.

[+DoofersDad]

1 hour ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Could anyone fill in exactly how this Battery Farm plan will operate?

Who will manage and operate the facility on a day to day basis? Who will physically oversee construction? Who will ensure that there is a market? Where is the set-up capital coming from? In practical terms, what is the nature of the link between the football club and ILI? What’s in it for ILI? When would funds be expected to arrive with the club? What does the club have to do in order to qualify for revenue from this facility? What are the projected profits? What’s the level of risk? If there are losses, who is liable and what would the implications be for the football club?

These are not hostile questions in any way. It’s just that, as a shareholder  in ITandCFC, developments over the last week have led me to realise that I know very little about this project, which it’s hoped will revolutionise the football club’s finances.

Sorry, Charles.  Can't help you out on any of this.

Have you tried emailing the SLO?  

[Stephen Malkmus]

Jack Waddington is making the most sensible posts in this thread. It's quite remarkable.

[Yngwie]

1 hour ago, Stephen Malkmus said:

Jack Waddington is making the most sensible posts in this thread. It's quite remarkable.

And your posts on this thread have been great. World’s gone mad! 

[RiG]

10 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

Planning decisions should ensure all planning regulations are complied with.  It sets a dangerous precedent if projects which do not comply are accepted simply because the project is seen to be important for the local community. 

Some planning applications can be given the go ahead if the perceived "benefits" outweigh negative impacts from a development or deviation from local or national planning policies. An obvious one is the Trump development at Menie where it was recognised that the "benefits" from the project would outweigh the detrimental effects on the environment. More recently the Coul Links golf proposal wasn't given the go ahead as it was felt the socio-economic benefits would not outweigh the environmental impacts from that particular development.

Obviously this battery farm is a different scale, policies etc but it wouldn't be that unusual if it were given the go ahead despite contradicting the IMLDP for example but the applicant would need to provide a robust argument that the departure is acceptable.

I would surmise that this is not the case here and, as @Stephen Malkmus has mentioned, this is what you end up with if you hire some jobbers to prepare your application material instead of getting experts involved.

Of course if HC do refuse the application there is the option of an appeal to the DPEA but that's not guaranteed to overturn the decision and if the DPEA were to uphold the original recommendation of refusal it would leave ILI in an almost impossible situation to move forward other than to submit a completely new application.

[wilsywilsy]

14 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Could anyone fill in exactly how this Battery Farm plan will operate?

Who will manage and operate the facility on a day to day basis? Who will physically oversee construction? Who will ensure that there is a market? Where is the set-up capital coming from? In practical terms, what is the nature of the link between the football club and ILI? What’s in it for ILI? When would funds be expected to arrive with the club? What does the club have to do in order to qualify for revenue from this facility? What are the projected profits? What’s the level of risk? If there are losses, who is liable and what would the implications be for the football club?

These are not hostile questions in any way. It’s just that, as a shareholder  in ITandCFC, developments over the last week have led me to realise that I know very little about this project, which it’s hoped will revolutionise the football club’s finances.

These are valid questions that should be put to the board et al who are waxing lyrical about how important the project is for "net zero" and the future security of the club. Some meaningful and quantifiable substance behind their green and financial sound bites would be helpful.

Edited November 23, 2023 by wilsywilsy

[Yngwie]

13 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

Planning decisions should ensure all planning regulations are complied with. 

Of course, but in reality it’s a bit like refereeing, isn’t it? You have clear fouls, clear fair challenges, and then some things in a grey area where even when the ref has a perfect view (ie all relevant information) he has to make a judgement and take into account any mitigations, and a different ref might reach a different verdict. Different outcomes can all be justified and sometimes it might just come down to whether he wants to give it or not!