Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[Charles Bannerman]

50 minutes ago, wilsywilsy said:

It’s a bit extreme to be talking about the club not existing and taking the trust down with it.

In the likely worst case, the club declares itself insolvent and goes into administration. Take the points deduction hit, restructures the debt (pennies in pound), come out of admin. The trust is an independent corporate identity and takes nothing financially from the club so wouldn’t be impacted. 

Worst, worst case the creditors don’t agree a deal and the only route out of admin is liquidation and we are in Sevco territory. Gardiner will be slavering over these comparisons. 

The thought of administration appals, but can’t be ignored even as a remote possibility. We don’t know exactly how much is owed to various people who have been chipping in to keep the club going, so we do have to wonder how much money, given in benevolent gestures to plug holes, might be at stake. Also, with all this spotlight on the club’s finances, how willing might local traders be to do business with it if they perceive some danger of bills not being paid, or only paid in small part? Unfortunately, I have to add that the demise of the concert company will already have done nothing to ease any such concerns. And if the administration horror show did materialise, how unwilling might future benefactors and suppliers be after the club emerged from it? There’s a huge amount riding on the next few weeks…. and minimal room for manoeuvre.

[STFU]

The cards are dealt, and we now wait to see how it plays out.

I'm not confident the vote will go in favour of the battery storage, and a quick search shows that in 8 appeals to the DPEA in 2022/23 involving Highland Council, only one was upheld.

The club's focus seems to be fixed on a couple of very specific lines in the various legislation, with little regard given to context.

i.e. they highlight net zero and government support for renewables, but ignore that legislation and support also exists for the protection of green spaces.

What will be weighed here is the value of one against the other.

Even if the club can prove there was a mistake made in the process, that does not automatically mean that it would be ruled the end decision was wrong.

[RednBlackComeback]

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/4-community-councils-representing-13-700-residents-unite-to-344556/

 

[Jack Waddington]

6 minutes ago, RednBlackComeback said:

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/4-community-councils-representing-13-700-residents-unite-to-344556/

 

Thats cute, but won't do squat when it gets brought up in the courts/against the Scottish Government.

Also why are councillors of areas 100+ miles away getting involved in this? Having one all the way from Fort William in the original vote was a mystery, but now everyone all the way up in Caithness and the like are coming out of the woodwork? Surely it only makes sense to only have Inverness area councillors vote/have a word as its an Inverness based issue

[old caley girl]

34 minutes ago, Jack Waddington said:

Thats cute, but won't do squat when it gets brought up in the courts/against the Scottish Government.

Also why are councillors of areas 100+ miles away getting involved in this? Having one all the way from Fort William in the original vote was a mystery, but now everyone all the way up in Caithness and the like are coming out of the woodwork? Surely it only makes sense to only have Inverness area councillors vote/have a word as its an Inverness based issue

That's not the way HC operates though? 

Someone in that article has done their homework? I certainly wasn't aware that the trust gives money or grants to the football club. Anyone able to shed some light on this? 

[Charles Bannerman]

9 hours ago, STFU said:

The cards are dealt, and we now wait to see how it plays out.

I'm not confident the vote will go in favour of the battery storage, and a quick search shows that in 8 appeals to the DPEA in 2022/23 involving Highland Council, only one was upheld.

The club's focus seems to be fixed on a couple of very specific lines in the various legislation, with little regard given to context.

i.e. they highlight net zero and government support for renewables, but ignore that legislation and support also exists for the protection of green spaces.

What will be weighed here is the value of one against the other.

Even if the club can prove there was a mistake made in the process, that does not automatically mean that it would be ruled the end decision was wrong.

Based on the information given to us at the meeting, I think STFU has hit the nail on the head with the “loss of green space v net zero contribution” summary, although if these councillors were to be pragmatic, they would also take into account (without necessarily admitting it!) the extra £125K in business rates - even if they don’t give a toss about the future of club that has brought the Highlands untold public attention through winning the Scottish Cup and playing in Europe. (Indeed, how valuable to the Highlands was “going ballistic” alone?

It’s difficult to quantify the “green energy dividend”, even with the numbers provided by the club, but it does appear to be significant. However, I think that the real power (no pun intended!) behind the argument in favour is the statistic we were given that the installation would only occupy 4% of the green area on that site, leaving 96% still untouched. I might also add that a hell of a lot of potential green space at places like the West Link and Craig Dunain seems to be yielded up by the Council to house builders without a hair being turned - and there are doubtless other similar instances.

One further point. What would it look like if Councillors from over 100 miles away were seen to turn out mob handed and overturn a decision taken by an admittedly small but perfectly legal group of their colleagues representing areas much closer to the installation in question.

[Yngwie]

2 hours ago, RednBlackComeback said:

https://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/news/4-community-councils-representing-13-700-residents-unite-to-344556/

 

Shall we have a game of spot the difference?

Read these extracts from the presentation against the project, then read Wilsywilsy’s posts on this thread. Uncanny!

“Contrary to multiple statements made… the land is not owned by Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club.

“In addition, the applicant emphasises that the ICT Community Trust is a main beneficiary, but fails to explain how ‘the financial benefits accrued from the development will be managed through the ICTFC Community Development Trust’.

“Moreover, public statements from the applicant suggest that their primary concern is addressing the football club's debts.”

 

[tm4tj]

As asked and as promised last night, the club will circulate a further update tomorrow to everyone who was able to be in attendance at Caledonian Stadium, and to those who contacted us to say they couldn’t make it but fully supported our efforts. Said Ross Morrison...

He's going to be working late tonight

Who wrote the article. Wilsy Smith?

[wilsywilsy]

28 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Shall we have a game of spot the difference?

Read these extracts from the presentation against the project, then read Wilsywilsy’s posts on this thread. Uncanny!

“Contrary to multiple statements made… the land is not owned by Inverness Caledonian Thistle Football Club.

“In addition, the applicant emphasises that the ICT Community Trust is a main beneficiary, but fails to explain how ‘the financial benefits accrued from the development will be managed through the ICTFC Community Development Trust’.

“Moreover, public statements from the applicant suggest that their primary concern is addressing the football club's debts.”

 

Ehh? Are you trying to imply a statement of fact based on a quote from the planning application sounding similar to another statement of fact around the same quote must be from the same person?

It sounds like the team who knocked this together are above my station. Maybe they got there inspiration from reading this thread?

Edited March 8 by wilsywilsy

[+DoofersDad]

1 hour ago, tm4tj said:

As asked and as promised last night, the club will circulate a further update tomorrow to everyone who was able to be in attendance at Caledonian Stadium, and to those who contacted us to say they couldn’t make it but fully supported our efforts. Said Ross Morrison...

He's going to be working late tonight

Who wrote the article. Wilsy Smith?

Just been sent.

https://ictfc.com/bess-fairways-23-00497-ful-reasons-why-this-application-can-and-should-be-approved/

[Jack Waddington]

Just had an email from the club with a template for the email we should send to our local councillors...would be handy if I could copy the thing without my phone having a go lmao

[tm4tj]

Copy away folks>>>

 

Dear Councillor, 

The proposed Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC Battery Farm development occupies only 2% of the former golf course at Fairways and its surrounding area and is distinct from the wider area because it is set behind commercial buildings and is screened by woodland. It has always been regarded as scrubland, even when the full golf course was in existence. The nearest house is more than 196 metres from the nearest planned battery unit.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/sdbh86zimecn52gngef1c/Map.png?rlkey=6ngeq0mzk1snvx48epxmgdj3k&dl=0

The only reason for refusal is based on the loss of open space which, it must be noted, is a privately owned golf course. The amount of area the batteries will use is only 2% of the total area and 98% remains untouched, leaving over 196 acres available for dog walkers and other users. The football club community trust is reinstating 10 acres of new pitches and open green space for the entire community just a few hundred yards away at the IRA.

No trees will be removed. Additional trees and shrubs will be planted.

The Council’s own ecology officer has confirmed that the proposed planting will deliver a biodiversity net gain and has no objections.

It creates no visual impact for even the closest housing which is almost 200 metres away.

It creates no audible impact for even the closest housing which is almost 200 metres away.

The approved and proposed Local Development Plan does not allocate any part of the golf course for housing and specifically not the application site as has been suggested.

Fire risk etc is not a material planning consideration.

The Head of Protection and Preparedness for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service confirmed they had no issues with this application.

The only matter to be assessed is the loss of the 2% of the existing privately owned golf course.

National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) provides the up-to-date policy guidance for all development proposals.

Policy 11 – Energy – states that

‘Development proposals for all forms of renewable, low carbon and zero emissions technologies will be supported’

Battery storage technology is specifically mentioned.

South Planning Applications Committee, by a legal majority, identified that while it was acknowledged that the development would result in a tiny loss of open space, the development would encourage, promote, and facilitate renewable energy storage and so would comply with policy 11 of NPF4. It was considered that the benefits gained under policy 11 of NPF4 outweighed the tiny loss of open space and therefore the application should be granted and see over 80 local jobs saved as a result and £125,000 in rates paid per annum to Highland Council.

This justification stands and remains a valid reason for the grant of planning permission and a lawful democratic vote should not be overturned because people didn’t like the result of the vote. It is the antithesis of a democratic decision.

Thank you, 

[+DoofersDad]

Better late than never.  We will now have to wait and see whether it is too late.  The earlier pronouncements with their arrogant and bullying tones will not have gone down well with many in the Council and will undoubtedly have harmed the case.  This latest communication is a much more measured message from the Chairman.  It sticks to the salient points and provides sound arguments for approval which are relevant to the application.  For instance, whilst acknowledging that a small amount of green space would be lost, the statement highlights that additional trees and shrubs would be planted with a resultant biodiversity gain.

 All councillors will now have these arguments and I rather doubt that receiving multiple copies of the same email will make them any more likely to vote in favour.  As STFU says, the cards are all dealt.  Let's just hope there is not another joker in the pack.

 

[Charles Bannerman]

1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

Better late than never.  We will now have to wait and see whether it is too late.  The earlier pronouncements with their arrogant and bullying tones will not have gone down well with many in the Council and will undoubtedly have harmed the case.  This latest communication is a much more measured message from the Chairman.  It sticks to the salient points and provides sound arguments for approval which are relevant to the application.  For instance, whilst acknowledging that a small amount of green space would be lost, the statement highlights that additional trees and shrubs would be planted with a resultant biodiversity gain.

 All councillors will now have these arguments and I rather doubt that receiving multiple copies of the same email will make them any more likely to vote in favour.  As STFU says, the cards are all dealt.  Let's just hope there is not another joker in the pack.

 

I said at the meeting that I didn’t think it was a good idea to antagonise the Council in the run up to this vote. God knows, Highland Council is a complete mess and in far more respects than this, but I reckon you need to be pragmatic so it’s not a good idea to tell them that under the current circumstances. 

[dougiedanger]

That last paragraph is an absolute mess; the first sentence does not make sense, and the whole things is brimming with a sense of passive-aggressive entitlement.

[Jack Waddington]

Doesn't really matter how snarky the email might seem, its mostly just facts and figures so the less informed councillors aren't just diving headfirst into "we must protect the greenspace" bin, and it reminds them that they *have* broken a law and the club will happily gear up and go all the way.

Either let go of a scrap of otherwise unused land behind a warehouse on a larger chunk of land that will become a housing estate in the next decade no doubt, or enjoy an expensive legal battle that will probably have ScotGov involvement.

[dougal]

4 hours ago, dougiedanger said:

That last paragraph is an absolute mess; the first sentence does not make sense, and the whole things is brimming with a sense of passive-aggressive entitlement.

I’d agree with you danger all that’s missing is WATP to sign it off. 
Definitely has a no one likes us but we don’t care kind of sentiment and entitlement to it.
The club have alienated itself from many local businesses and now seems to be doing the same with the local authority.

A very dangerous route to go down if you ask me.

Dougal

 

[RiG]

Yeah that final paragraph is an embarrassing inclusion. Suspect someone bundled that on at the end but it's not overly helpful. The rest of it is a bit better in that it at least focuses on planning matters rather than petty point scoring. 

[Charles Bannerman]

2 hours ago, RiG said:

Yeah that final paragraph is an embarrassing inclusion. Suspect someone bundled that on at the end but it's not overly helpful. The rest of it is a bit better in that it at least focuses on planning matters rather than petty point scoring. 

I think that the club also needs to remember that this debate/campaign is being held in a very public arena, so overly aggressive communications with Councillors are also being seen by the whole community, and this is bound also to influence the perception of the club by that public. Here we also have to consider that public perception of ICT took a considerable knock after the collapse of the concert company and I fear that further damage could be done here. It’s unfortunate that the dire finances also exclude the employment of some advice on PR.

Edited March 9 by Charles Bannerman

[Robert]

The club’s suggested wording is a template, so there’s nothing to stop anyone who wishes to make representations to Councillors amending the wording as they see fit, whilst retaining the salient points.

[dougal]

The so called guardians and a fair number of fans on here should also remember the Highland Council represent the whole of the Highlands not just the city of Inverness. 

This very blinkered centralised view is not healthy at all.

Dougal 
 

 

 

[Satan]

2 minutes ago, dougal said:

The so called guardians and a fair number of fans on here should also remember the Highland Council represent the whole of the Highlands not just the city of Inverness. 

This very blinkered centralised view is not healthy at all.

Dougal 
 

 

 

That's an argument for a city council , which is for another day.

[+DoofersDad]

According to the Courier, 4 local Community Councils have issued a statement opposing the application. It strongly contradicts the club’s arguments on a number of points.  What an absolute mess this is. 

[wilsywilsy]

8 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

it reminds them that they *have* broken a law and the club will happily gear up and go all the way.

Out of interest, what law has been broken? 

[wilsywilsy]

10 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

I said at the meeting that I didn’t think it was a good idea to antagonise the Council in the run up to this vote. 

Exactly. Many of us said the same on here earlier this year. Rather than try and win hearts and minds with the merits of the proposal they have gone with a victim mentality and personalised their criticism of anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Over and over and over.

At the meeting on Wednesday Morrison responded to your question by saying something along the lines of “what did you expect me to do?”. The answer should have been “be a f*ckin adult about it”.