Council rules out revoking battery storage planning

Battery storage facilities are becoming more common as a way of maintaining energy security

A council has decided against attempting to revoke planning permission for a battery storage facility.

Conservative members at East Renfrewshire Council had raised concerns the proposed 40MW lithium-ion batteries in Eaglesham could pose a fire risk.

Councillors voted 12 to 6 against imposing a revocation order – which could have led to the local authority paying out £4m in compensation.

However, campaigners said they were still planning to challenge the decision in court.

Giant batteries are used to store excess renewable energy, which can then be used to power homes in the event of low supplies.

A number of facilities have been constructed across Scotland in recent years as demand for energy increases.

The planned development by GPC 1337 Ltd, a subsidiary of Apatura, on the east side of Glasgow Road, will create about 15 jobs during the construction period, according to the company.

Conservative councillors pushed for the council to defer ruling on revocation pending "the outcome of the judicial review into the council's handling and conduct on this matter".

They have previously called for revocation and asked officials to set out the necessary legal steps and cost of the process.

In a report, council officials said the council could need to pay compensation of more than £4m if permission was revoked.

It also said an order could be opposed by the applicant, landowner or anyone else deemed to be affected and there would likely be a public inquiry, heard by a reporter appointed by Scottish ministers.

Conservative councillor Gordon Wallace said there could be a "perception that this is a perhaps biased report by those who actually approved of it [the application]".

'Many concerns'

His party was concerned about a section which stated that as council officials recommended planning approval was granted, they couldn't "appear to defend the opposite case" if it went to a public inquiry.

He said: "I'm not suggesting for a minute that is the case but what I am suggesting is how it may be perceived by the wider public."

But a council official said: "The report you have before you does not make a recommendation to you."

She added the papers set out "legal and procedural matters in order to make that decision [on revocation] for yourselves".

Mum-of-three Morag Hannan, who lives opposite the site, said she was planning to challenge the council's decision to approve the plans in court.

She previously said she has "many concerns about the safety risk as well as toxic fumes" from the site.

Judicial reviews focus on the process or legality of a decision, rather than the planning merits of the application.

Reporting by local democracy reporter Drew Sandelands.