Battery energy storage systems (BESS) store energy from renewable sources like solar and wind for later use. Lithium-ion batteries, commonly used in mobile phones and electric cars, are the dominant storage technology for large-scale renewable energy plants to ensure reliable power supply.
However, there are concerns regarding the safety of these systems due to awareness of the potential fire hazard, already seen from world news. There is no evidence that gaseous protection is effective in extinguishing a fire involving energy storage systems. As an example, David Scott, Stirling Station Commander, Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS), has mentioned that BESS is classed as an emerging risk for the fire service and they are still collecting data.
East Renfrewshire Council BESS Planning Applications Timeline
Below is a table summarising the timeline of the applications. It is worthwhile to consider the concomitant applications. At the first hearing, four councillors voted against the proposal while two supported it. However, in the second, one of the councillors who voted against the proposal was unable to attend the meeting. The councillor was approached but no response was obtained.
- 28 Mar 2024 Planning application 2024/0168/TP submitted by AAH Planning Consultants on behalf of GPC 1137 LTD.There are a number of recently formed GPC LTD and Apatura projects registered at the same address on Companies House.
- 31 Oct 2024 Planning Application 2024/0168/TP is refused and council issue a Decision Notice
- 19 Dec 2024 Applicant Submits Planning Permission Appeal PPA-220-2088 to Scottish Government Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA)
- 24 Jan 2025 Whilst the appeal to DPEA is in progress, AAH Planning Consultants submit new application 2025/0043/TP to East Renfrewshire Council.
- 20 Feb 2025 DPEA invite East Renfrewshire Council to respond to questions on the rejected application, 2024/0168/TP
- 15 Mar 2025 Both the Council Planning Service and Licensing Committee, who refused application 2024/0168/TP, respond to DPEA.
- 15 Apr 2025 The appeal for the rejected application is still ongoing but Application 2025/0043/TP is approved, subject to conditions. East Renfrewshire Council Decision Notice and Report of Handling – Committee
- 22 April 2025 Applicant notifies DPEA that application 2025/0043/TP is approved.
- 23 April 2025 In light of council’s approval of 2025/0043/TP the DPEA ask the appellant if they wish to withdraw the appeal for 2024/0168/TP.
- 24 April 2025 Applicant has responded they wish to progress appeal however DPEA determine a decision notice 2025/0043/TP for the same site will not be accepted at this late stage. (If the DPEA had upheld the appeal the applicant would have had the benefit of choice of plan to initiate – 2024/0168/TP or 2025/0043/TP).
- 8 May 2025 DPEA dismiss the case and consent for the first application (2024/0168/TP ) is refused. Decision notice – dated 08 May 2025
Planning Application Documentation
The rejected 2024/0168/TP contains all the original documentation, including consultative reports and objections, whereas the approved 2025/0043/TP contains the application, decision notice, report of handling and 18 drawings – seven drawings have lesser detail/elevations and pre-date the drawings in the rejected application.
Community Concerns
The approval of a new application while the rejected application was still under appeal by the Scottish Government is not prohibited. Legislation indicates that a final decision for such a major project should be presented to a full council meeting, which would allow members of the public to address councillors directly. Those factors, along with significant objections from individuals, Mearns East Community Council (MECC) and other elected representatives, has led to a sense in the locality that due process has not been followed.
MECC has said:
“Mearns East Community Council has campaigned against this proposal since the PA was first posted. MECC is very concerned about the proximity of the pylons, power lines and the main gas pipeline. We are also defending Cllr Paul Edlin against the advice for him not to attend the PAC on the 15th of April.”
One resident in the area expressed her views:
“I’m scared in case this goes ahead and there’s an accidental explosion. Toxic gas release, impact on our environment, the fallout to our water supplies, crops, livestock in the fields, and us humans would be devastating. Not to mention fire service locally would be unable to deal with such huge explosions and fires. We do not want this in our neighbourhood. We don’t want a future disaster! No to Battery Energy Storage Systems on our greenbelt and close to our homes.”
Greenbelt Concerns
Eaglesham became the first conservation village in the UK in 1960 – the approved BESS site location is on the greenbelt just 0.5 kilometres from the village.
The DPEA decision notice considered that the rejected 2024/0168/TP application failed to satisfy policy on the green belt. It stated, “[…] identified no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that my assessment against the development plan should be set aside, including the indirect contribution to climate change and emission targets.”
The applicant had considered a number of alternative sites and in the planning meeting for 2025/0043/TP it was highlighted there was no technical barrier to those alternatives – the applicant could not obtain permission from the landowners in 18 of the alternative locations.
Individuals, community groups and elected representatives continue to campaign against the approved plan.
The petition: Overturn the Battery Storage Plant Approval in Eaglesham – Eaglesham, United Kingdom · Change.org, has been running for eight weeks and over 3,000 people have signed it.
Eaglesham Community Action | Facebook has almost 800 members and is “dedicated to providing information to all residents of Eaglesham and Waterfoot, and beyond who object to the placement of a Battery Energy Storage Facility, in Eaglesham.”
One of the members said:
“Wrong to be on green belt. Too scary to live the disaster of having this on fire with toxic fumes going too far, this has happened already elsewhere. Close proximity to gas pipes and high voltage electricity. Fear of toxins to the ground and possibly affecting the underground water for years. Council not looking after its local residents and that’s scary as we don’t know what will come next? We will always be suspicious and that is not what we need from our council. Also, not very happy with many of the elected members we tried to contact and got no response, so it’s now evident they are not working for their constituents.”
Question to be answered
Why does it appear that this council was attempting to rush this application through, prior to the Scottish reporter’s decision being made public?
East Renfrewshire Council was offered a right of reply, and after three working days, no answer has been received yet.
More in environment.
