Plans for battery storage site in West Lothian countryside given permission despite objections

Councillors have backed plans for a battery energy storage site (BESS) in open countryside a few minutes drive from Bathgate and Armadale town centres despite concerns over the fire risks.

The Development Management Committee agreed to back the facility in the interests of reducing long-term carbon emissions.

However, councillors accepted recommendations that the site’s operational lifespan should be only 30 years rather than the 50-year lifespan, which would have seen the facility operating until 2075.

In a written objection, Colin Frame of Bathgate questioned whether the fire suppression systems outlined in the plans would be enough.

He said: “Owing to the prevailing south westerly wind, toxic smoke and fumes from a fire at the site would quickly end up over the nearby housing on the west side of Bathgate, not to mention Windyknowe Primary School to the south, putting residents’ health at risk.

“The 2020 fire at a Merseyside BESS site took over 50 hours to extinguish. This type of fire is clearly extremely dangerous and difficult for the Fire and Rescue Services to deal with.

“Should the wind be coming from the east, traffic using the A801 would be immediately affected and Armadale residents also at risk.”

Planning officers said the rural location of the “relatively small site” was acceptable. The land is north-west of Middlerigg Farm in between Bathgate and Armadale, just off the A801. The site is around eight acres and will store up to 49.9MW.

Planners added: “The proposal includes the installation of battery energy storage containers, inverter panels (2.0m in height) with transformer and air handling unit panels (both 2.5m in height), a district/customer substation, control room, water tank, security lighting with cctv and a SUDs basin, as well as two swales for surface water drainage.”

More than 100 trees, described as mainly roadside shrubbery, will be taken down but the developers promised to plant 200 trees around the site to provide additional screening.

In papers to the DMC planners said: “The land is not, however, classed as prime agricultural land, albeit it is a countryside belt. Given the site’s topography, the application site will not be highly visible from main vantage points.”

Councillors accepted that the applicants Galileo 10 Ltd had submitted a Fire Safety Plan.

Councillor Tony Boyle said: “Looking at the objection, I am satisfied that Scottish Fire and Rescue has said that it conforms to all standards.

Chairing the meeting, Harry Cartmill a Bathgate councillor, said: “None of us is going to be here in 40 years time but nevertheless we need to get this right, if we are to determine this positively.”

Wendy McCorriston, the development management manager, told the meeting: “I realise our condition suggests 50 years and our applicant has mentioned 40 years. The most recent battery storage site we have approved has been for 30 years.

“Given the potential changes in technology, 50 years would not be appropriate.”

She outlined that facilities such as wind turbines had initially been given 20-year lifespans, and some have been extended, while photo-voltaic sites, or “solar farms,” have been granted 30-year lifespans.

Laura Petrie, for the firm, said the 30-year lifespan would be acceptable.

Councillor Damian Doran-Timson had raised questions about replacing the storage cabinets on the site. When told that equipment would need to be replaced in 10 to 15 years, the head asked: “What would be the likely impact of equipment replacement within 10 to 15 years. Would the access be sufficient?”

Colin Laverty, an agent for the developers, said: “Yes, it would.”

Mrs McCorriston told the meeting: “It is a balance and i think in terms of planning policy this is a site that is not readily visible but a distance from main residential areas is acceptable and in terms of the land take it is relatively small .”

Bathgate Councillor Pauline Stafford, who had asked for the application to be discussed by DMC, was not at the meeting, but fellow town representative Willie Boyle attended remotely.

He told the meeting: “My concern about this site is simply that what we are granting is a commercial site on agricultural land.

“I understand the locational need. I don’t have a great issue with it, but because it is a commercial site the screening is important and I welcome the assurances and I look forward to seeing a copy of the final planting plan, but I am reassured from what I have heard.

“Demand changes, and we have to change with it. Other than that, I’m quite happy to support what’s been put forward.”