Council could owe £4m if Eaglesham battery storage plant planning permission revoked

Compensation owed by East Renfrewshire Council if it revokes planning permission for a battery energy storage plant in Eaglesham could hit more than £4m, a new report has revealed.

There have been calls for a U-turn on the decision to approve the construction of a 40MW facility on greenbelt land to the east side of Glasgow Road.

Campaigners who oppose the development by GPC 1337 Ltd, a subsidiary of Apatura, say they are concerned about their safety as lithium-ion batteries pose a possible fire risk.

Conservative councillors previously had a motion which pushed for revocation ruled incompetent. They returned with a request for officials to set out the necessary legal steps and cost of the revocation process.

All East Renfrewshire councillors will decide whether to pursue a revocation order on Wednesday.

An order can be opposed by the applicant, landowner or anyone else deemed to be affected, the council report states, and there would likely be a public inquiry, heard by a reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers.

Compensation would be payable if planning permission is modified or revoked, and can cover loss of land value as well as loss of operating profit. Revocation could be challenged in the Court of Session.

The report also states a “broad indication has been given of the cost of compensating for the loss of land value in the range of £1.5m-£4m”.

Compensation for the loss of operating profit over 40 years would be additional to these costs but cannot be predicted by council officers.

There would also be costs for professional and legal advice, representation at a public inquiry and a fee for a chartered surveyor to value the compensation liability and negotiate a settlement. These could range from £350,000 to £450,000, it has been estimated.

Almost 3,800 have signed a petition against the project. Apatura wants to store surplus energy from the national grid in 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, who pushed for more details on pursuing a revocation order, previously said there are “widespread” concerns locally, including over safety as there is “evidence that such batteries have a risk of catching fire”.

Mum-of-three Morag Hannan, who lives opposite the site, is planning to challenge the council’s decision to approve the plans in court.

The new report from council officials states that even if the permission is successfully revoked, another application for a battery energy storage system on the same site, by the same applicant, could be brought forward.

That application could be approved by “the council or by the Scottish Ministers through the appeal system”. “Revocation would not guarantee that there would not be a battery energy storage system on this site in the future,” the report adds.

It also states the ability to revoke permission exists in equivalent planning law in England and it is “accepted that planning case law, ministerial statements and precedent applies across both jurisdictions”.

An English ministerial statement from 2006 noted the “intervention of the secretary of state to revoke a planning permission can only be justified in exceptional circumstances and only if the original decision is judged to be grossly wrong, so that damage is likely to be done to the wider public interest”.

The council report states: “There is no indication that the decision made by the planning applications committee in accordance with due process and in public was grossly wrong in planning terms.

“A successful revocation order in this case could therefore undermine the future authority of the planning applications committee, allowing members to seek to revoke duly made planning decisions in any circumstance where there is sustained public objection to a proposal.”

The developers had an initial bid refused by East Renfrewshire’s planning committee last year, when councillors voiced concerns over fire risk, but a second application was later approved.

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

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

Ahead of the meeting where planning permission was granted, council officials 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 created underground.