Jump to content
FACEBOOK LOGIN ×

Battery Project - Chairman's Statement


DoofersDad

Recommended Posts

They’d need to allow vehicles to turn right from Stadium Road to go over the Kessock Bridge and someone would need to pay for a frequent service between the ground and the City Centre.

Edited by Robert
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2023 at 11:16 PM, Robert said:

They’d need to allow vehicles to turn right from Stadium Road to go over the Kessock Bridge and someone would need to pay for a frequent service between the ground and the City Centre.

Well, if someone at Transport Scotland gets their arses in gear to build the flyover, it shouldn't be a problem 😂

Edited by Jack Waddington
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
7 minutes ago, Leaky Blinder said:

The song "In the year 2525" by Zager & Evans suddenly sprung to mind 

I will have that in my head all night now :lol:

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lot's of truth in that song...

In the year 6565 You won't need no husband, won't need no wife You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too From the bottom of a long glass tube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Oh dear. Looks like the club have done well to remove some of the grounds for refusal but there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent the loss of a small amount of open space, it’s a pretty inherent part of any development.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The councillors on the committee now have good grounds to ignore any concerns relating to noise or ecology as their officers are happy with the scheme in terms of those issues.

At the last committee meeting, those seemed like bigger concerns to them than the loss of the open space. I reckon the committee will overrule the officer's recommendation and it will get approved.

  • Thank You 1
  • Thoughtful 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds very logical Stephen but I’ve found over the years that logic and common sense quite often fly out of the window at committee when personal agendas come into play. I’ve no idea if that would be an issue in this particular case but nothing ever surprises me when councillors are involved.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

Got a slice in the Courier this morning, looks like the Battery Farm's main problems have been ironed out and the only one left is Green Space loss. Next review is next wednesday but the committee are visiting the site before then.

If that's the only issue, it would be laughable if it's refused as there seems to be no issues with any other greenspace being gobbled up by Tulloch or any other developers for building houses. 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Fraz said:

If that's the only issue, it would be laughable if it's refused as there seems to be no issues with any other greenspace being gobbled up by Tulloch or any other developers for building houses. 

Not quite as straight forward as that. The land is part of the protected green space in the Inner Moray Firth Development Plan. The locations where volume builders, like Tulloch Homes, get to cram in their streets of identical and over priced boxes is marked on that same long term plan as development land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone asked for, or seen, any data that backs up the claims this project is the equivalent of planting a million trees? Or the data that shows how it will make the club wealthier than the King (and not line the pockets of the allegedly "invested" individuals closely associated to the board room)?

I ask because I noticed two of the biggest financial players in this space, Gresham House Energy Storage Fund and Gore Street Energy Storage Fund, have been getting an absolute hounding on the markets over the last 6 months. Related news coverage suggests it is because of serious concerns about the funds ability to provide dividend cover i.e. the markets expecting the dividends to get slashed due to revenues dropping off.

Edited by wilsywilsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was a close run thing passed by 1 vote. Chair backed to refuse and that was seconded but only had 5 councillors allowed to vote and passed by 3 to 2. They have got through by the skin of their teeth

Edited by gingerjaggy
  • Thank You 1
  • Well Said 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • tm4tj pinned this topic
  • tm4tj unpinned this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy