Plans for battery energy storage facility on greenbelt land rejected over fire fears

Plans to store energy in batteries on greenbelt land near Eaglesham have been thrown out over fears about the potential fire risk.

Over 250 objections to the scheme were sent to East Renfrewshire Council, but planners had recommended it could go ahead.

Councillors voted to reject the project, though, raising concerns over the risk of fire from lithium-ion batteries.

They also questioned the site’s appropriateness and said the energy is “not necessarily from renewable sources.”

Cheshire-based GPC 1137 Ltd wanted to build and run a 40MW battery energy storage facility on greenbelt, agricultural land at the east side of Glasgow Road, Eaglesham.

Surplus energy from the national grid would have been stored in batteries to be returned when required. It was described as a “temporary” installation, with the site returned to its previous condition after 40 years.

The firm said the development would “fulfil a vital ‘balancing role’, helping to ensure the grid remains stable at times of stress”.

It added: “It will also help support the decarbonisation of the grid by enabling the grid to accept a greater proportion of electricity generated from more intermittent renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar.”

However, the council received 252 objections, with concerns over the visual impact, residential amenities, loss of greenbelt land, and health and safety, including fire risk.

In a report to councillors, planners said the scheme could be approved. One told the committee that the council was “entitled to expect that it’s run safely”. The applicants submitted a safety plan which outlined how fire risk would be minimised.

Cllr Paul Edlin, Conservative, said: “Lithium ion batteries have an inherent risk of fire, you can’t deny that.

“This is sited near the village of Eaglesham. A child could be walking down that road or on its bike, and the thing explodes. There is a risk.”

He also said the “temporary” timeframe of 40 years was “beyond most of the lifetimes of many of the people here [the planning meeting], including myself”.

Cllr Andrew Morrison, Conservative, said his concern was that “on the face of it… there is no generation of energy actually involved”.

He added: “The fact it is being fed from the national grid and Giffnock sub-station means the energy that is being fed into the batteries is not necessarily from renewable sources. It will be coming from whatever energy mix is in the grid.”

Cllr Morrison said the committee should consider the “fire risk”. A planning official said: “We would be entitled to expect that it’s run safely.

“Therefore in itself it wouldn’t be a health risk, but we can’t control if something happened to it.”

He confirmed no energy would be generated but added: “The applicant has advised that as we move towards using more and more renewable sources, there needs to be a means of having that power when the wind isn’t blowing or that source isn’t available.”

The official added battery storage systems are becoming “more and more common” and it would “take it off the grid and put it back out when it’s required”.

Planning committee chairman Cllr Jim McLean, Conservative, said: “We cannot tell if this is renewable energy or not because it’s coming from a substation which all the power is fed into.”

He added it was on greenbelt land and the applicant had “made no mention of alternative sites” despite other substations being closer than Giffnock.

However, Cllr Annette Ireland, independent, said: “I do find myself an advocate for these. I realise how essential they are for renewable energy as we move away from fossil fuels.”

She suggested the plans should be approved but lost out by four votes to two.

Provost Mary Montague, Labour, was also supportive of the scheme. She said: “This is in the periphery of our area, it’s out of the way.

“This is battery storage, so my understanding is that it does store power for future use. In that way, it’s not just environmentally friendly but helpful.”

She had requested a site visit, but Cllr McLean’s casting vote defeated that proposal after a 3-3 split.