By Local Democracy Reporter Drew Sandelands Peter A Walker
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 鈥渟uppressed鈥, as councillors voted against a wider discussion on the topic at a meeting last week.
More than 3,500 people have signed a petition against the plan from GPC 1337, 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 鈥渟upport the decarbonisation of the energy industry in the UK鈥.
Councillor Paul Edlin said there are 鈥渨idespread鈥 concerns locally, including over safety, as there is 鈥渆vidence that such batteries have a risk of catching fire鈥.
His motion aimed to determine 鈥渢he likely cost and process鈥 of revocation if it 鈥渨ere to be proposed at a later date鈥.
鈥淚 would stress this is not a party political matter, but rather a quasi-judicial issue,鈥 he added.
Permission for the development was initially refused by East Renfrewshire鈥檚 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 鈥渁dverse visual effects in a greenbelt location鈥.
Edlin鈥檚 motion stated 鈥渁 previous application for an almost identical development was rejected鈥 and asked councillors to note the 鈥渟ignificant similarities between the two applications and the clear precedent set by the reporter鈥檚 ruling鈥 regarding development in the greenbelt鈥.
However, these sections were removed by an amendment from council leader Owen O鈥橠onnell, Labour, who described them as 鈥渁ssertions and matters of judgement which we can鈥檛 agree to as a council body鈥.
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 in favour of continuing without a debate, with only the Tories and councillor David Macdonald, an independent, in support of further talks.
Edlin said he had 鈥渘o idea why this motion should be challenged鈥 other than 鈥渃ertain members of the council are not prepared to accept a motion鈥 from the Conservatives.
鈥淚 find that very sad because we are here to serve the residents of the whole of East Renfrewshire,鈥 he said, adding 鈥渄emocracy has been suppressed because we can鈥檛 discuss it鈥.
鈥淭he amendment鈥 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.
鈥淭his is a purely political decision as far as I鈥檓 concerned and the motion is apolitical.鈥
Officials will now prepare a report on the 鈥渓egal and procedural steps required to issue a revocation order鈥 as well as 鈥減otential compensation liabilities鈥.
O鈥橠onnell said the report would hopefully provide 鈥渟unlight on issues which have led to much public and sometimes misleading debate鈥.
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 councillor Annette Ireland, who was chairing the planning meeting, following external legal advice, which had indicated the motion identified 鈥渘o basis for revocation鈥.
The developers have said the application was 鈥渁ccompanied by a suite of technical documents which demonstrate the proposal will not lead to significant adverse harm鈥.
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.
Don’t miss the latest headlines with our twice-daily newsletter – sign up here for free.