MSP urges councillors who greenlit controversial battery storage site to resign

Permission for a controversial plan to store energy in batteries on greenbelt land in Eaglesham could be revoked by East Renfrewshire Council.

Two Conservative councillors, Jim McLean and Andrew Morrison, will ask the council’s planning committee to back a U-turn at a meeting next week.

Initially, councillors rejected a plan from GPC 1337 Ltd, a subsidiary of Apatura, for a 40MW battery energy storage facility on an agricultural site on the east side of Glasgow Road.

But the firm’s second bid was approved last month, despite over 300 objections, on the casting vote of the chair, Cllr Betty Cunningham, Labour, after a 3-3 vote. Both applications had been recommended for approval by planners.

Since the second plan got the green light, a Scottish Government reporter has announced his decision to uphold the original refusal of the first application. He had been considering an appeal by the applicants.

More than 3,000 people have signed a petition calling for the planning approval to be overturned. It states: “Our voices have been ignored and the decision does not reflect the best interest of those who call this area home.”

Cllr McLean and Cllr Morrison opposed both proposals when they were presented to the planning committee. They raised concerns over the appropriateness of the site.

The aim of the scheme is to store surplus energy from the national grid in the batteries, which would then be returned when required. It has been described as a “temporary” installation, with the site returned to its previous condition after 40 years.

The first application was refused after councillors raised concerns over the risk of fire from lithium-ion batteries. Local MSP Jackson Carlaw, Conservative, has said the greenbelt should be protected and the proposal is “intrusive and inappropriate”.

He also said there were “very serious concerns and real-life examples of fires that have erupted at battery plants because of the lithium-ion batteries”.

Keith Bray, the independent reporter appointed by Scottish Ministers, refused the appeal over the original application earlier this month.

He found that “while the proposal could make a small-scale and indirect contribution to renewable energy and greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, it would entail development that has adverse visual effects in a greenbelt location where strict control over new development is to be exercised”.

Mr Bray added: “When completing my decision, the council approved a revised scheme on the site and the appellant asked to submit it. Given it was late in the appeal process, I did not accept it.”

He also said the company had asked to submit drawings which showed the “installation of two further above-ground water tanks” to align with the proposal’s fire safety plan. These weren’t accepted as they “constituted a change to the proposal”.

Council officials had 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.

They added that the development includes specialised container units for the batteries and fire suppression equipment.

Following the reporter’s decision, Mr Carlaw added it “highlights with even greater clarity that people in Eaglesham and Waterfoot have been utterly ignored and failed by the council”.

He called on councillors who backed the development to “consider their position and resign”.

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.

East Renfrewshire’s planning applications committee will meet on Wednesday, June 4. The motion asks for planning officials to issue a revocation order under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.