Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[STFU]

5 hours ago, Satan said:

Someone from Dingwall clutching at straws?

No, the fingers would be webbed in that case.

[STFU]

2 hours ago, Yngwie said:

To what extent are councillors likely to vote as political blocks, as they normally do, or do they get a free vote on matters like this? 

It would be nice to think that the SNP and Greens, who form the government whose policy encourages approval of these schemes and is committed to net zero etc, will stick to their principles and not suddenly become NIMBY hypocrites. Likewise the other main parties are always falling over themselves to stress their green credentials.So it’ll be a walk in the park, right? If only…

The same SNP and Greens whose policies also support the retention and improvement of Green Spaces?

[STFU]

1 hour ago, lightlamp2 said:

According to the courier article a few days ago. The councillors that voted to recall the decision belonged mainly to the SNP and Greens. Believe it was something like 14 SNP councillors and 3 out of 4 Green councillors.

A fairly proportionate spread across all factions

There are 13 from the SNP:
Paul Oldham, Nairn and Cawdor
Michael Cameron, Inverness Central
Tamala Collier, Cromarty Firth
Kate MacLean, Inverness Central
Drew Millar, Skye
Ken Gowans, Inverness South
Ian Brown, Inverness Millburn
Glynis Campbell-Sinclair, Culloden and Ardersier
Marianne Hutchison, North, West and Central Sutherland
Chris Birt, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh
Liz Kraft, Wester Ross, Strathpeffer and Lochalsh
Sarah Fanet, Fort William and Ardnamurchan
Emma Knox, Aird and Loch Ness

There are five Lib Dems:
Alasdair Christie, Inverness Ness-side
Richard Gale, East Sutherland and Edderton
Angus MacDonald, Fort William and Ardnamurchan
Trish Robertson, Culloden and Ardersier
John Grafton, Caol and Mallaig

Four Independents:
Thomas MacLennan, Fort William and Ardnamurchan
Sarah Atkin, Black Isle
Sean Kennedy, Dingwall and Seaforth
Calum Munro, Skye

Three Conservatives:
Barbara Jarvie, Nairn and Cawdor
Liz Saggers, Caol and Mallaig
Andrew Sinclair, Inverness South

Green councillors Chris Ballance (Aird and Loch Ness), Andrew Baldrey (Caol and Mallaig) and Kate Willis (Fort William and Ardnamurchan) have also signed.

As well as two members of the Highland Alliance group: Matthew Reiss (Thurso and Northwest Caithness) and Andrew Jarvie (Wick and East Caithness).

---------------------

It would be interesting to know how many of those have the relevant planning training and will be a part of the vote.

[STFU]

38 minutes ago, Yngwie said:

Disappointing but not surprising. Hypocritical NIMBYs, as I feared. The bigger concern is that when it gets appealed to the Scottish Government, they will be very reluctant to overturn the decision and thereby discredit and humiliate their own politicians. We are in worse trouble than I previously thought.

I guess it's very easy for someone who doesn't live in Inverness, let alone the Highlands, to lazily call Nimby on anyone who may disagree with the siting of this Battery Storage facility?

[Yngwie]

I’m no nimby. There’s one of these being built within view of my bedroom window, about 200 metres away, and I didn’t object. The nearest house is actually about 80m away I would guess, yet  it sailed through planning with no controversy and no objection from the community council.

I’d probably rather it wasn’t going there, but it doesn’t bother me at all, and these things have to go somewhere, and if it wasn’t this then something else would be built there instead at some point that might be worse.

[RiG]

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

Disappointing but not surprising. Hypocritical NIMBYs, as I feared. The bigger concern is that when it gets appealed to the Scottish Government, they will be very reluctant to overturn the decision and thereby discredit and humiliate their own politicians. We are in worse trouble than I previously thought.

The DPEA generally has no issue overturning decisions at a local scale provided there is justification for doing so. The concern would be if the DPEA dismissed an appeal and the club were minded to take it to the Court of Session then the chances of success there would be slim to none. Very few decisions by the DPEA get overturned in the courts. 

[Yngwie]

2 hours ago, STFU said:

The same SNP and Greens whose policies also support the retention and improvement of Green Spaces?

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

[+snorbens_caleyman]

14 hours ago, STFU said:

I guess it's very easy for someone who doesn't live in Inverness, let alone the Highlands, to lazily call Nimby on anyone who may disagree with the siting of this Battery Storage facility?

At a superficial level, it's actually very easy for me, in a densely populated and cultivated area 20 miles from the centre of London, to be amused at concerns about "loss of green space".  It's the Highlands of Scotland, FFS 

But, yes, I do understand - it's loss of readily accessible green space.

[GaliantGrunt]

Maybe it would be better to build the football stadium at Fairways and the Battery storage down at the dump!

[+DoofersDad]

23 hours ago, DoofersDad said:

the Community Councils state: " The BESS site guidelines from the National Fire Chiefs’ Council make it irrefutably clear that this steep site and planning application for an industrial chemical energy storage site has multiple unresolvable safety issues."  That is strong stuff.  But the club's statement states: "Fire risk etc is not a material planning consideration." and "The Head of Protection and Preparedness for the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service confirmed they had no issues with this application."  

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.

[STFU]

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.

[STFU]

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.

[Yngwie]

7 minutes ago, STFU said:

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

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

 

[STFU]

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.

[+DoofersDad]

1 hour ago, STFU said:

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.

Thanks.  This illustrates my point about the confusion.  You suggest the discussion at the meeting that there is no guidance for the fire assessment of battery storage in Scotland, but that is contradicted by the Community Councils who base their objections on BESS site guidelines from the National Fire Chiefs Council.  The NFCC is a UK wide body, but in any case, it is complete nonsense to say that just because there is no guidance available you can't refuse an application.  The person responsible for providing fire safety advice to the Council has a professional responsibility to use whatever sources are available in order to give the best advice possible.  If consent is given, of course it is likely to be subject to conditions and inspection prior to operations starting up, but giving consent means that, subject to conditions, it is considered safe.

[Yngwie]

Appropriate procedures and controls need to be in place for anything like this and it would make complete sense for any planning consent to have appropriate conditions applied. But as far as I can see it is all about risk management rather than fire services having a right to say no on principle to this or to any other application that has a fire risk.

The NFCC’s BESS guidance says there should be a minimum of 25m between the BESS and other buildings/dwellings. ICT’s proposal offers 8 times that. The Community Councils must’ve just missed that part.

[+DoofersDad]

The Community Councils need to provide some evidence to support their statement that the NFCC guidance makes it "irrefutably clear" that the site "has multiple unresolvable safety issues".

[old caley girl]

1 hour ago, DoofersDad said:

Thanks.  This illustrates my point about the confusion.  You suggest the discussion at the meeting that there is no guidance for the fire assessment of battery storage in Scotland, but that is contradicted by the Community Councils who base their objections on BESS site guidelines from the National Fire Chiefs Council.  The NFCC is a UK wide body, but in any case, it is complete nonsense to say that just because there is no guidance available you can't refuse an application.  The person responsible for providing fire safety advice to the Council has a professional responsibility to use whatever sources are available in order to give the best advice possible.  If consent is given, of course it is likely to be subject to conditions and inspection prior to operations starting up, but giving consent means that, subject to conditions, it is considered safe.

The Chairman named the individual he had spoken to at national level fire service. Can't remember title but something similar to being in charge of health and safety. He said the fire service hadn't objected at planning so there was no issue. After planning granted they'd come in and look at exits, hardstandings etc and look at the fire plan and advise. Someone asked if thus was in writing and he alluded this was. 

[ICT Supporters Trust]

Regardless of anyone's views on the merits and / or location of the Battery Farm, or the series of events that have led to the club being in its current difficult situation, it is clear that the coming weeks and months are going to be amongst the most significant in the club's history.

Now more than ever, it is important that the voices of fans are heard and listened to.

The Supporters Trust represents the fans of the club, and is a bridge between the club and its supporters. It operates independently of the club, but seeks to ensure that the issues fans have are recognised and addressed by the club. Recent activities include the Fans Meetings, Matchday Survey and the establishment of a group to focus on issues facing disabled fans on matchdays.

The greater the membership of the Supporters Trust, the greater the influence it can have on the club.

We have welcomed a number of new members in recent weeks, and if you are not already a member, it is easy to join, and only £5 (£1 for under 16s). Just press the "join" button on this link:

https://www.ictsupporterstrust.org/join-us

There is more detail about the Trust on its website, including details of the current Board members.

If you are not already a member, we look forward to welcoming you and hearing your views.

[Jack Waddington]

Had an email back from one Monsieur David Fraser of the Aird and Loch Ness Ward simply stating "Thank you and I have noted your comments. As it is a live application, I cannot comment further". Can only assume all the councillors of the HC have been handed this cut and paste dialogue to reply with if they decide to

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

Here is the conclusion that members were presented with at the South Planning Committee before approving it;

CONCLUSION 5.1 Following the submission of additional information both the Council’s Environmental Health Officer and Ecology Officer have removed their respective objection and subsequently reasons for refusal 2 and 3 are no longer relevant. 5.2 Nevertheless, it is not considered that the submission has adequately justified the loss of designated open space as a result of industrial development and therefore the proposal’s impact on designated open space remains as assessed in the Report considered by the South Planning Applications Committee at its meeting on 22 November 2023. The recommendation is to refuse the application on the grounds of the impact on the open space. 6. IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Resource: Not applicable 6.2 Legal: Not applicable 6.3 Community (Equality, Poverty and Rural): Not applicable 6.4 Climate Change/Carbon Clever: Not applicable 6.5 Risk: Not applicable 6.6 Gaelic: Not applicable 7.

RECOMMENDATION Action required before decision issued Notification to Scottish Ministers N Conclusion of Section 75 Obligation N 44 Revocation of previous permission N Subject to the above actions, it is recommended to REFUSE the application for the following reason: 1. The proposal is contrary to National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) Policy 20 a), and Highland-wide Local Development Plan Policy 75 by virtue that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the Open Space is not fit for purpose, nor has substitute provision has been offered to meet the needs of the local area, nor is it considered that the proposal for the development of the Open Space would significantly contribute to the spatial strategy for the area, which aims to: ‘concentrate development on existing settlements, create sustainable new communities, provide the infrastructure and transport network required to support these communities whilst ensuring the area’s most valuable built and natural assets are protected.’ Consequently it is not considered that the threshold of maintaining the overall integrity of the Open Space network is achieved.

The Notice of Amendment being considered by the full Council this Thursday is to review the decision.  That would suggest the issue is solely about 'the integrity of the Open Space network' . If members were misinformed, there was a mistake in law, or new material information has come to light could justify a review.  On the basis that the review is purely about the integrity of the Open Space - the Council's agenda does not clarify this - then I would expect all Councillors able to address the review are taken for a site visit prior to the meeting, as were the Planning Committee members. 

The current decision of the Committee in the draft minute is as follows:

Amendment: Mrs I MacKenzie, seconded by Mr R Jones to approve the application because, while it was acknowledged that the development would result in a loss of open space, the development would encourage, 44 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 loss of open space and therefore the application should be granted, with powers delegated to officers in consultation with the Chair and members who had participated in the decision to develop the appropriate conditions.

 https://www.highland.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/4950/highland_council/attachment/83016

[old caley girl]

12 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

Had an email back from one Monsieur David Fraser of the Aird and Loch Ness Ward simply stating "Thank you and I have noted your comments. As it is a live application, I cannot comment further". Can only assume all the councillors of the HC have been handed this cut and paste dialogue to reply with if they decide to

He's,my Cllr too. Did for for plan at planning though. The other 2 Cllrs in the ward Chris Balance and Emma Knox are signatories to pull this back to full council. 

[RiG]

12 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

Had an email back from one Monsieur David Fraser of the Aird and Loch Ness Ward simply stating "Thank you and I have noted your comments. As it is a live application, I cannot comment further". Can only assume all the councillors of the HC have been handed this cut and paste dialogue to reply with if they decide to

They obviously cannot say more than that otherwise it would (further?) prejudice the determination of the application before HC.

[lightlamp2]

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

Edited March 11 by lightlamp2

[Satan]

Ah, the old quasi-judicial nugget.