Battery Project - Chairman's Statement

[+DoofersDad]

1 hour ago, Yngwie said:

Some of that criticism is somewhat unfair and overlooks the fact that the club went through the proper process got it through planning permission, they did it. Nobody could have predicted the highly irregular manoeuvre that happened next. 

But they didn't really go through the proper process if they didn't use the Council's pre-application consultation process.  This might have allowed them to fully address the issues of concern and have the application go through with a "better look" which would not have triggered the subsequent process.  The subsequent process might be very unusual, but I assume it is a legitimate one or else the Council officials would not have allowed it to be used.  No doubt the club will, quite rightly, take legal advice on this.

Whether it got through the planning committee vote or not is actually not really relevant in terms of judging how the club behaved.  Clearly the application had some issues associated with it and there was a significant risk it would not go through the committee and get planning permission. They put the application in knowing that it was on protected green space, so, of course there was a risk.  The club put the future of the club against that risk and that, to my mind, was reckless.  

It would still have been reckless had they won the vote yesterday.  If you staked your household's life savings on an even money favourite at Cheltenham, then win or lose, it would still be a very reckless thing to to.  If you are going to stake all your savings on something, then you need to be like Putin in today's election and get all the necessary arrangements in place to make sure you do win.  The club and its partners failed to do the necessary work to ensure the application's smooth progress and then reduced the chances of it going through subsequently by antagonising the very people they needed to persuade.

I should add that I am in no way defending the elected councillors here.  It does appear that there are some who have some kind of agenda.  Others on both sides of the argument could barely string two words together and were utterly incapable of making a coherent argument to support their voting intention.  The whole episode is just a shambles all round.

[+roarer]

22 minutes ago, Robert said:

We will need to move quickly. Loch Ness are in talks with Strathspey Thistle about a merger….

For goodness sake don't tell Dougal!

[Yngwie]

2 minutes ago, roarer said:

For goodness sake don't tell Dougal!

For goodness sake don’t tell Charles!

[+snorbens_caleyman]

2 hours ago, STFU said:

... the political term of lobbying, but the very definition of that is 'influence by intimidation'.

It really isn't.  More like "attempting to influence one or more decision makers".  Far more likely nowadays to involve backhanders or freebies than "intimidation".

[RednBlackComeback]

1 hour ago, Satan said:

The digs were at these two I suppose because it was their shitshow that they lost control of... but if you're in public office, for the greater good or personal gain you are putting yourself and whatever irrational decisions you make up for debate.

This is not to be confused with a polite email now & again.

To be fair , if you're active on  'x' you will probably be experienced at media manipulation and the outcomes one can achieve, and will more likely than not enjoy the attention .

Seems to me that the problem with politics nowadays is that all politicians are in it for their own self promotion/gain/importance. They seek attention instead of just getting on with the job and doing what's best for their constituents and/or country. 

Billy Connolly was absolutely correct when he said "The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever becoming one.”

[Yngwie]

28 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

But they didn't really go through the proper process if they didn't use the Council's pre-application consultation process.  This might have allowed them to fully address the issues of concern and have the application go through with a "better look" which would not have triggered the subsequent process.  The subsequent process might be very unusual, but I assume it is a legitimate one or else the Council officials would not have allowed it to be used.  No doubt the club will, quite rightly, take legal advice on this.

Whether it got through the planning committee vote or not is actually not really relevant in terms of judging how the club behaved.  Clearly the application had some issues associated with it and there was a significant risk it would not go through the committee and get planning permission. They put the application in knowing that it was on protected green space, so, of course there was a risk.  The club put the future of the club against that risk and that, to my mind, was reckless.  

It would still have been reckless had they won the vote yesterday.  If you staked your household's life savings on an even money favourite at Cheltenham, then win or lose, it would still be a very reckless thing to to.  If you are going to stake all your savings on something, then you need to be like Putin in today's election and get all the necessary arrangements in place to make sure you do win.  The club and its partners failed to do the necessary work to ensure the application's smooth progress and then reduced the chances of it going through subsequently by antagonising the very people they needed to persuade.

I should add that I am in no way defending the elected councillors here.  It does appear that there are some who have some kind of agenda.  Others on both sides of the argument could barely string two words together and were utterly incapable of making a coherent argument to support their voting intention.  The whole episode is just a shambles all round.

A few comments on your thoughts there.

1. They 100% did go through the proper process.

2. Pre-application consultation is optional. Had they done it it would have just delayed the application process, which in turn would have reduced the financial gain due to the terms of the deal the club struck with their partners. The sum has already dropped due to the delays.

3. The pre-application advice would simply have told them what everyone already knew, that the site is on green space and therefore the application could not be supported by the planning department. That’s something that is incapable of being changed.

4. I fail to see what could have been done that would have stopped Councillor Oldham being against the application and seeking to overturn the initial consent.

5. In terms of ‘recklessness’, filling out a few planning forms and paying a few fees in the hope of getting £3.4m is not reckless. It is valid to criticise years and years of spending in excess of our income which got into this financial black hole, but not to criticise a pretty low risk project that could get us out of it!

[The Mantis]

1 hour ago, STFU said:

Lots of people disagree that the world is spherical, doesn't make them right.

It’s not a sphere, it’s an oblate spheroid.

Prof Pedant.

[Jack Waddington]

6 minutes ago, The Mantis said:

It’s not a sphere, it’s an oblate spheroid.

Prof Pedant.

Don't tell that to the folks on Greig Street

[IBM]

4 hours ago, lightlamp2 said:

Spot on. The club should just lie down and accept NIMBY councillors who prioritise sledging over 3 and a half million for a local business without kicking up a fuss.

 

The Council have a lot of integrity and really have the best wishes of Inverness at its heart. You can see this from how they gave us the UNESCO registered bridge built on the river ness. And thank god they had the resolve to ignore the 99% of residents here who wanted to save the ironworks. And voted to turn it into a hotel. 
 

God bless the councillors. Who know better than us. Our club should be ashamed of daring to speak out against our betters

And the ironworks site will now go to rack and ruin as the hotel company has pulled out and the Ironworks company have turned down an offer of using the building again after stripping everything out!  Our Highland Council is working wonders for the City and the Highlands.

[+DoofersDad]

2 hours ago, Yngwie said:

A few comments on your thoughts there.

1. They 100% did go through the proper process.

2. Pre-application consultation is optional. Had they done it it would have just delayed the application process, which in turn would have reduced the financial gain due to the terms of the deal the club struck with their partners. The sum has already dropped due to the delays.

3. The pre-application advice would simply have told them what everyone already knew, that the site is on green space and therefore the application could not be supported by the planning department. That’s something that is incapable of being changed.

4. I fail to see what could have been done that would have stopped Councillor Oldham being against the application and seeking to overturn the initial consent.

5. In terms of ‘recklessness’, filling out a few planning forms and paying a few fees in the hope of getting £3.4m is not reckless. It is valid to criticise years and years of spending in excess of our income which got into this financial black hole, but not to criticise a pretty low risk project that could get us out of it!

So they shouldn't have gone through the pre-application consultation because all it would have done is to tell them what they already knew, that the site is on green space and could not be supported by the planning department.  So, instead they are supposed to just submit the application in full knowledge that it is not going to be supported?  Hmm.

A "pretty low risk project"? When you know the Planing Department cannot support it?  I don't think so!

Back in November, the chairman posted a rambling video prior to the original planning committee meeting on 22nd November, in which he urged councillors to vote for the application.  He told them it "doesn't make any sense" to reject it and it would "be a travesty if it is refused".  He was prompted to do this after having what he referred to as the "devastating news" that the planners had recommended refusal on 4 grounds - 3 of which were easily resolvable.  The Committee subsequently deferred the decision in order that the applicants could provide the further information required to satisfy the planners concerned.  

In his video, Morrison stated that there had already been a two and a half year planning process, so I really don't think going through the pre-application process would have resulted in delays.  To the contrary, having engagement with the planning officials would surely have flagged up the issues which resulted in a delay to the application and inconvenience to the Council.

The other thing that is evident from this is that after 30 months of planning, they simply arrogantly assumed that because the BESS scheme would make such a positive contribution to net zero targets, this would override any objections about the loss of green space.  It would appear that there had been no discussion with anyone at the Council as to what might be required to overcome an issue which, apparently,  requires the planning department to recommend refusal. Whilst Morrison is not using any belligerent language in this video, being told it would be a travesty if the application does not get approval will also not have gone down well with Councillors.  People want to be persuaded by reasoned argument; not lectured to.

Had there been better engagement with the Council and a case presented which robustly addressed the green space issue, this application could have sailed through in November.  Instead it may well not get the go-ahead at all.

 

[lightlamp2]

22 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

So they shouldn't have gone through the pre-application consultation because all it would have done is to tell them what they already knew, that the site is on green space and could not be supported by the planning department.  So, instead they are supposed to just submit the application in full knowledge that it is not going to be supported?  Hmm.

A "pretty low risk project"? When you know the Planing Department cannot support it?  I don't think so!

Back in November, the chairman posted a rambling video prior to the original planning committee meeting on 22nd November, in which he urged councillors to vote for the application.  He told them it "doesn't make any sense" to reject it and it would "be a travesty if it is refused".  He was prompted to do this after having what he referred to as the "devastating news" that the planners had recommended refusal on 4 grounds - 3 of which were easily resolvable.  The Committee subsequently deferred the decision in order that the applicants could provide the further information required to satisfy the planners concerned.  

In his video, Morrison stated that there had already been a two and a half year planning process, so I really don't think going through the pre-application process would have resulted in delays.  To the contrary, having engagement with the planning officials would surely have flagged up the issues which resulted in a delay to the application and inconvenience to the Council.

The other thing that is evident from this is that after 30 months of planning, they simply arrogantly assumed that because the BESS scheme would make such a positive contribution to net zero targets, this would override any objections about the loss of green space.  It would appear that there had been no discussion with anyone at the Council as to what might be required to overcome an issue which, apparently,  requires the planning department to recommend refusal. Whilst Morrison is not using any belligerent language in this video, being told it would be a travesty if the application does not get approval will also not have gone down well with Councillors.  People want to be persuaded by reasoned argument; not lectured to.

Had there been better engagement with the Council and a case presented which robustly addressed the green space issue, this application could have sailed through in November.  Instead it may well not get the go-ahead at all.

 

The club did address the green space issue. It takes up 2 percent of the total space of an overgrown and unkempt field of grass. It also results in a net biodiversity gain. The judgement call was left up to councillors as to whether kids using their sledges in winter was more valuable than 3 and a half million for a local business, 125K business rates for the council. And contribution towards net zero. 

[STFU]

3 hours ago, lightlamp2 said:

The club did address the green space issue. It takes up 2 percent of the total space of an overgrown and unkempt field of grass. It also results in a net biodiversity gain. The judgement call was left up to councillors as to whether kids using their sledges in winter was more valuable than 3 and a half million for a local business, 125K business rates for the council. And contribution towards net zero. 

Telling someone you don't think something is important is not addressing the issue.

[CELTIC1CALEY3]

9 hours ago, IBM said:

And the ironworks site will now go to rack and ruin as the hotel company has pulled out and the Ironworks company have turned down an offer of using the building again after stripping everything out!  Our Highland Council is working wonders for the City and the Highlands.

The same South Planning Chairperson used his casting vote to close Everlast. Expect this to have a detrimental effect on Council and Health Board services. ICT FC lose their gym and pool rehab base. Councillors are not really accountable for decisions but that is how our democracy has evolved.

[STFU]

18 minutes ago, CELTIC1CALEY3 said:

The same South Planning Chairperson used his casting vote to close Everlast. Expect this to have a detrimental effect on Council and Health Board services. ICT FC lose their gym and pool rehab base. Councillors are not really accountable for decisions but that is how our democracy has evolved.

Not true.  They approved plans for the changes after Everlast Gym made the decision not to renew their lease.  Rejecting the planning application would not have kept Everlast Gym open, and would possibly have meant another commercial space laying empty.

[+DoofersDad]

8 hours ago, lightlamp2 said:

The club did address the green space issue. It takes up 2 percent of the total space of an overgrown and unkempt field of grass. It also results in a net biodiversity gain. The judgement call was left up to councillors as to whether kids using their sledges in winter was more valuable than 3 and a half million for a local business, 125K business rates for the council. And contribution towards net zero. 

I'm sorry, but you are completely missing the point here.  The club only addressed this issue after the planning committee's 3-2 vote in favour had been taken back to the whole council.  At the time, I commented on this and said that the net biodiversity gain should be enough to justify the loss of the small amount of loss of green space.  I commended the Chairman on that more focussed and restrained statement.

The point is, that the club and its partners had not made the biodiversity argument earlier.  One of the earlier concerns of the planning department was concerns from the ecology officer about the loss of biodiversity.  That concern was very simply resolved by a commitment to plant more trees and shrubs. Problem solved with a 30 second thought process!  After a 30 month planning process for a development which they knew the planners would not support because of the green space issue, it simply beggars belief that the simple solution of planting a range of trees and shrubs on the site was not a key part of the original application.

Having said that, I absolutely agree that the sledging and dog walking arguments were incredibly weak.  Arguments around business rates etc were simply not relevant to planning and were an unnecessary distraction.  

[ictbob]

Skimming through this so don't know if this has been asked already but have council explained why only 5 turned up for the original vote but when the sh!# hits the fan over 50 of them stroll in. Is this not there job to look at these things and be there to vote if they have an opinion? Doesn't sound like there doing there jobs correctly!

[Jack Waddington]

Not sure when they started doing it, but the ICTST has business cards at the West Stand kiosk. Get yerselves joined up

[Charles Bannerman]

49 minutes ago, ictbob said:

Skimming through this so don't know if this has been asked already but have council explained why only 5 turned up for the original vote but when the sh!# hits the fan over 50 of them stroll in. Is this not there job to look at these things and be there to vote if they have an opinion? Doesn't sound like there doing there jobs correctly!

The original decision was taken by the South Planning Committee comprising councillors from south of the Kessock Bridge. Some of these failed to attend the site visit so were disqualified, some declared an interest and it’s said some couldn’t be @rsed, leaving 5 as against a quorum of 3.

The decision was then referred to the full council, also including members from 100+ miles away from Inverness and that attracted an attendance of 56, with no apparent concern about declaring interests or not having done a site visit.

[STFU]

2 minutes ago, Charles Bannerman said:

The original decision was taken by the South Planning Committee comprising councillors from south of the Kessock Bridge. Some of these failed to attend the site visit so were disqualified, some declared an interest and it’s said some couldn’t be @rsed, leaving 5 as against a quorum of 3.

The decision was then referred to the full council, also including members from 100+ miles away from Inverness and that attracted an attendance of 56, with no apparent concern about declaring interests or not having done a site visit.

The original planning meeting delayed a decision as one councillor asked if they could have a site visit.

A site visit was arranged, but there was no mention of it being compulsory However, at the next planning meeting only those who attended were allowed to vote and a there were a couple of other exclusions for anyone who was deemed to have a conflict of interest (e.g. the vice provost was excluded as she sits on the ICTWFC committee).

This left only 5 people eligible to vote.

Ahead of the full council meeting, drone footage had been taken of the area and distributed to councillors, which was deemed a sufficient substitute for a site visit.

Of the 74(?) members of full council, only those with valid and up to date planning training were allowed to vote.  I don't believe there were any other exclusions, so that left 53 to cast votes.

[Satan]

Extra planning training was organised for those of the '30' who didn't have thus qualification. 

[Yngwie]

What?! 

[+DoofersDad]

Different rules for different meetings it seems.  There appears to be plenty in all these machinations for the Club and Partners' legal team to explore in making their case for appeal.  

[STFU]

They don't need a legal case for appeal, it is their right to do.  Just as it was the Highland Council's right to call the decision in to full committee.

The 'side case' of taking legal action for corruption (which seems to be the jist of Gardiner's allegations) may actually delay any appeal if Scottish Government don't want to get involved while that's going on.

[caley1]

2 hours ago, STFU said:

They don't need a legal case for appeal, it is their right to do.  Just as it was the Highland Council's right to call the decision in to full committee.

The 'side case' of taking legal action for corruption (which seems to be the jist of Gardiner's allegations) may actually delay any appeal if Scottish Government don't want to get involved while that's going on.

 

2 hours ago, STFU said:

They don't need a legal case for appeal, it is their right to do.  Just as it was the Highland Council's right to call the decision in to full committee.

The 'side case' of taking legal action for corruption (which seems to be the jist of Gardiner's allegations) may actually delay any appeal if Scottish Government don't want to get involved while that's going on.

 

2 hours ago, STFU said:

They don't need a legal case for appeal, it is their right to do.  Just as it was the Highland Council's right to call the decision in to full committee.

The 'side case' of taking legal action for corruption (which seems to be the jist of Gardiner's allegations) may actually delay any appeal if Scottish Government don't want to get involved while that's going on.

 

2 hours ago, STFU said:

They don't need a legal case for appeal, it is their right to do.  Just as it was the Highland Council's right to call the decision in to full committee.

The 'side case' of taking legal action for corruption (which seems to be the jist of Gardiner's allegations) may actually delay any appeal if Scottish Government don't want to get involved while that's going on.

Someone corrupting and it’s nothing to do with  SG ?  Having this guy at the club until any appeal would be heard is disaster itself . The club and fans cannot continue association with this guy any longer than is necessary . Waiting a year or even months with this clown running things down will just finish the club totally . Things are as low as they need to be and we all  need a lift . Getting rid should be  the start of the way forward . Should never have been employed in the first place . 

[dougal]

An appeal is all very good but it will cost considerable money to do so. Let’s hope the money comes out of the same pot that pays Big Duncan’s huge wage.

This ain’t going to end well. 
 

Dougal