23/06/2025

Published Barrhead News On Line

www.barrheadnews.com/

Efforts to revoke Eaglesham battery storage plant permission continue

By Drew Sandelands
Local Democracy Reporter

A fresh push to explore the potential revocation of planning permission for a controversial battery energy storage plant in Eaglesham is being made.

Conservatives on East Renfrewshire Council have renewed their efforts to force a U-turn on a decision to approve the construction of the 40MW facility on greenbelt land.

A motion that called for permission to be revoked was ruled “not competent” at a planning committee meeting earlier this month.

But Cllr Paul Edlin is planning to present a new motion, seconded by Cllr Andrew Morrison, to a full council meeting on Wednesday. If it passes, council officials would be asked to set out the required steps to issue a revocation order.

Over 3,500 people have signed a petition against the plan from GPC 1337 Ltd, a subsidiary of Apatura, to store energy in batteries on agricultural land at the east side of Glasgow Road. Objectors have raised concerns over building on greenbelt land as well as the potential risk of fire from lithium-ion batteries.

The council also received notice of a judicial review, as campaigners look to get the ruling overturned. East Renfrewshire’s planning committee had rejected an initial proposal, but a second application was approved last month.

After that decision, a reporter appointed by the Scottish Government rejected an appeal over the first plan. Keith Bray, the reporter, found the proposal would lead to “adverse visual effects in a greenbelt location”.

The planned motion states “a previous application for an almost identical development was rejected by the planning applications committee, a decision subsequently upheld by the Scottish Government Reporter following an unsuccessful appeal by the developer”.

It asks the council to note there were “significant similarities between the two applications and the clear precedent set by the reporter’s ruling… regarding development in the greenbelt”.

The new motion would ask officials to prepare a report on the legal and procedural steps needed to issue a revocation order as well as for clarification on any potential compensation liabilities.

It also requests the report includes any “relevant legal and financial implications for the council arising from a potential revocation”.

“This motion seeks to uphold the integrity of the planning process, ensure policy consistency, and protect the council’s interests in the event of legal or financial consequences,” it concludes.

The decision to rule the initial motion not competent was taken by independent Cllr Annette Ireland, who was chairing the planning meeting, following external legal advice.

Advice, from Douglas Armstrong KC, indicated that “a motion simply seeking revocation of the earlier decision such as before the committee today is not competent”, a council official said.

He added the motion identifies “no basis for revocation” and “neither references nor assesses the statutory criteria or the potential consequences relevant to such a decision”.

GPC 1337 Ltd has said the development will “support the decarbonisation of the energy industry in the UK” and 28 other sites had been considered, but this is “the only deliverable, viable” one.

The plans were “accompanied by a suite of technical documents which demonstrate the proposal will not lead to significant adverse harm,” the applicants added.

The aim of the scheme is to store surplus energy from the national grid in the batteries, which would then be returned when required.

Council officials previously reported the second application differed from the original as more information has been submitted on fire safety and a water tank is now proposed to be underground

04/07/2025

Published Barrhead News On Line

Revocation of Eaglesham battery plant permission to be explored

By Drew Sandelands
Local Democracy Reporter

The potential revocation of planning permission for a controversial battery energy storage plant in Eaglesham will be investigated.

The required legal steps and the cost of the process if a decision to U-turn on the construction of a 40MW facility on greenbelt land was taken are to be explored by East Renfrewshire Council.

Conservatives on the council previously had a motion which pushed for revocation ruled incompetent. They returned with a call for officials to set out the necessary process in a report.

However, they have claimed debate on the issue is being “suppressed” as councillors voted against a wider discussion on the topic at a meeting last week.

Over 3,500 people have signed a petition against the plan from GPC 1337 Ltd, a subsidiary of Apatura, to store energy in batteries on agricultural land at the east side of Glasgow Road.

The firm wants to store surplus energy from the national grid in the batteries, which would then be returned when required. It has said the development will “support the decarbonisation of the energy industry in the UK”.

Cllr Paul Edlin said there are “widespread” concerns locally, including over safety as there is “evidence that such batteries have a risk of catching fire”.

His motion aimed to determine “the likely cost and process” of revocation if it “were to be proposed at a later date”. “I would stress this is not a party political matter but rather a quasi-judicial issue,” he said.

Permission for the development was initially refused by East Renfrewshire’s planning committee, but a second application was later approved.

After that decision, a reporter appointed by the Scottish Government rejected an appeal over the first plan. Keith Bray, the reporter, found the proposal would lead to “adverse visual effects in a greenbelt location”.

Cllr Edlin’s motion stated “a previous application for an almost identical development was rejected” and asked councillors to note the “significant similarities between the two applications and the clear precedent set by the reporter’s ruling… regarding development in the greenbelt”.

However, these sections were removed by an amendment from council leader Owen O’Donnell, Labour, who described them as “assertions and matters of judgement which we can’t agree to as a council body”.

Councillors voted 11-5 in favour of his amendment, which was backed by both Labour and the SNP.

Before considering the motion, councillors were asked to decide whether they wanted to have a debate or move straight to a vote.

They voted 11-5 in favour of continuing without a debate, with only the Tories and Cllr David Macdonald, an independent, in support of further talks.

Cllr Edlin said he had “no idea why this motion should be challenged” other than “certain members of the council are not prepared to accept a motion” from the Conservatives.

“I find that very sad because we are here to serve the residents of the whole of East Renfrewshire,” he said, adding “democracy has been suppressed because we can’t discuss it”.

“The amendment… will have the same effect, the same things will be done, but the statement has been changed because it suppresses aspects of the discussion which is not in the spirit of openness which I would like to think this council has.

“This is a purely political decision as far as I’m concerned and the motion is apolitical.”

Officials will now prepare a report on the “legal and procedural steps required to issue a revocation order” as well as “potential compensation liabilities”.

Cllr O’Donnell said the report would hopefully provide “sunlight on issues which have led to much public and sometimes misleading debate”.

The council has also received notice of a judicial review, as campaigners look to get the planning ruling overturned.

The decision to rule the initial motion not competent was taken by independent Cllr Annette Ireland, who was chairing the planning meeting, following external legal advice, which had indicated the motion identified “no basis for revocation”.

The developers have said the application was “accompanied by a suite of technical documents which demonstrate the proposal will not lead to significant adverse harm”.

Council officials previously reported the second application differed from the original as more information has been submitted on fire safety and a water tank is now proposed to be underground.