Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[dougiedanger]

This email campaign is a great idea. 

[Charles Bannerman]

5 hours ago, CELTIC1CALEY3 said:

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

Is an English translation of this available? I’ve lost my Gibberish - English Dictionary.

[Yngwie]

It’s a polite and very technical way of saying “get tae ****!”

Edited March 11 by Yngwie

[STFU]

4 hours ago, lightlamp2 said:

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

That second email that you think is blowing you off is the best response from any councillor I've seen yet.

He takes the time to explain why the decision is being reviewed, that the original decision has not been overturned, and the process that will now take place.  He also explains the dangers of following the course of action the club has encouraged.

Given the fact you state the other response could be prejudicial, do you really want councillors responding in support of the clubs position and being excluded from the vote?

[Satan]

1 hour ago, STFU said:

 

Given the fact you state the other response could be prejudicial, do you really want councillors responding in support of the clubs position and being excluded from the vote?

So the four councils who have joined up and come out with their PowerPoint against the application will be excluded from the vote?

Or is doing it via a 'spokesperson ' negate any particular councillors interest being called into question...

[STFU]

21 minutes ago, Satan said:

So the four councils who have joined up and come out with their PowerPoint against the application will be excluded from the vote?

Or is doing it via a 'spokesperson ' negate any particular councillors interest being called into question...

I believe it was 4 community councils, not Highland Councillors.  Entirely separate organisations/people.

[lightlamp2]

2 hours ago, STFU said:

That second email that you think is blowing you off is the best response from any councillor I've seen yet.

He takes the time to explain why the decision is being reviewed, that the original decision has not been overturned, and the process that will now take place.  He also explains the dangers of following the course of action the club has encouraged.

Given the fact you state the other response could be prejudicial, do you really want councillors responding in support of the clubs position and being excluded from the vote?

The original decision hasn't been overturned? Great so the club can go ahead with the legal vote to approve planning permission I assume?

 

Interesting to note the councillor in question was excluded from voting as he couldn't be arsed to turn up to the meeting. But still voted to overturn the result when he didn't get the vote he wanted.

[STFU]

2 minutes ago, lightlamp2 said:

The original decision hasn't been overturned? Great so the club can go ahead with the legal vote to approve planning permission I assume?

 

Interesting to note the councillor in question was excluded from voting as he couldn't be arsed to turn up to the meeting. But still voted to overturn the result when he didn't get the vote he wanted.

The lightlamp's on, but nobody's home!

[dougal]

3 hours ago, Charles Bannerman said:

Is an English translation of this available? I’ve lost my Gibberish - English Dictionary.

I’m sure there must be at least one copy of “Against all odds” somewhere that hasn’t been burned on the fire or landfilled!!

 

Dougal

 

 

 

[IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER]

Who can I send this to ??

[+snorbens_caleyman]

4 minutes ago, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

Who can I send this to ??

Jeremy *unt?

[ICT Supporters Trust]

On 3/10/2024 at 5:20 PM, ICT Supporters Trust said:

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.

Welcome to the 12 new members who have joined the Supporters Trust since Sunday: thank you for your interest and support.

Your membership will help the Trust to ensure that the views of fans are heard by the club at what is one of the most critical periods in the club's history.

Membership is only £5 (£1 for Under 16s) and joining is easy on this link:

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

[wilsywilsy]

On 3/10/2024 at 4:06 PM, DoofersDad said:

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".

Considering the public objections around fire safety, the discussions in the last planning meeting about fire safety, now the communuty councils saying "would ya look at all these fire safety guidance issues", it is odd that the club didn't publish or attach to the planning application whatever they have in writing from Scottish Fire and Rescue to try and debunk any of that. Unless the letter is a nothingburger.

Instead, the template email the club sent everyone said "Fire risk etc is not a material planning consideration."

Edited March 12 by wilsywilsy

[wilsywilsy]

On 3/11/2024 at 3:19 PM, STFU said:

That second email that you think is blowing you off is the best response from any councillor I've seen yet.

He takes the time to explain why the decision is being reviewed, that the original decision has not been overturned, and the process that will now take place.  He also explains the dangers of following the course of action the club has encouraged.

Agree with that. I think everyone is jumping to the conclusion that this has gone to a full council vote because loads of the councillors are against it (as well as Bezos and the illuminati). That could be the case but I don't think its a given. As Michael Cameron says a decision on something that is clearly a bit divisive needs to stand up to scrutiny.

As for the chat about party lines - nae idea. I reckon it's impossible to read. You could refer to manifesto pointers in either direction for this one.

[bdu98196]

You'd think a few handshakes around the lodge and all this would get resolved

[Robert]

Have a look at the slide numbered 75 in this document for the Council Meeting on Thursday which is about the Council’s own Battery Storage plans:

https://www.highland.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/83021/item_12_our_future_highland_council_delivery_plan_2024-2027_-_14_march_2024

Edited March 12 by Robert

[Jack Waddington]

39 minutes ago, Robert said:

Have a look at the slide numbered 75 in this document for the Council Meeting on Thursday which is about the Council’s own Battery Storage plans:

https://www.highland.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/83021/item_12_our_future_highland_council_delivery_plan_2024-2027_-_14_march_2024

Slide 84, actually, but still at a loss as to why we're being shot in the foot when its right there, plain as day that they want to do it regardless. Surely it'd be far more logical to let someone else put in the graft and delegate the funds into other projects?

[STFU]

7 hours ago, Jack Waddington said:

Slide 84, actually, but still at a loss as to why we're being shot in the foot when its right there, plain as day that they want to do it regardless. Surely it'd be far more logical to let someone else put in the graft and delegate the funds into other projects?

The paranoia continues.

I've seen nothing to say Highland Council are against Battery Storage or that they are against other people building them.  The main sticking point with the ILI/ICTFC one is that they want to locate it on protected green space in an area not zoned for industrial use.

One other thing, it literally says 75 in the bottom right of the slide.

[wilsywilsy]

1 hour ago, STFU said:

The paranoia continues.

I've seen nothing to say Highland Council are against Battery Storage or that they are against other people building them.  The main sticking point with the ILI/ICTFC one is that they want to locate it on protected green space in an area not zoned for industrial use.

One other thing, it literally says 75 in the bottom right of the slide.

I presume this relates to some idea the council previously had about proposing one at these at Torvean quary?

Speaking of slides...... this might have already been posted and I missed it. My normally good for nothing Wilsy Jnr showed me last night that Lochardil council have shared all their slides on social media here https://drive.google.com/file/d/17IM85misgFxNm8Uun14ns2Y_GnmxrZ6C/view?fbclid=IwAR0mlocg8ln9rl4l66w1T1X3VfMAySTe6Zz2kNQRg2wRRzzbqNmKR3SfPBc

At first reading they seem to make some reasonable points. Very surprised they left the socio-economic benefits unchallenged. Will be interesting to see if any of this cuts through to the underlying loss of green space debate tomorrow.

[Satan]

'On behalf of over 13700 residents who we represent '

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

Today's topical subject 'giant batteries will help power Scotland'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd180263w7no

[IBM]

18 minutes ago, CELTIC1CALEY3 said:

Today's topical subject 'giant batteries will help power Scotland'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd180263w7no

It is badly needed all over to cut down paying millions every year to the power companies to stop production when demand is low!
 

[STFU]

Hydro and gravity batteries are more effective, less harmful for the planet, and much safer than chemical batteries.

[+Fraz]

Never mind this pish we should be investing in fusion power and warp drive! 

[lizi]

STV news tonight also on about Battery Storage places, apparently this is the immediate future and, more than two dozen already planned or already in action, in Scotland.  Maybe ICT ahead of the game here, but also, I believe Highland Council have plans themselves for Battery Storage.   Wheels within wheels or not enough cash in the envelopes?   There’s more to this!!!