Excellent decision by the Reporter Keith Bray on the Eaglesham BESS appeal. A very interesting point which should be useful for us all to quote in the future was:
“I understand that because a battery scheme exports electricity, the proposal should be treated as generating/distribution infrastructure for policy purposes and not a renewable energy proposal. Such a proposal is classed as ‘essential infrastructure’ by NPF4. The
intent of NPF4 policy 11 supports battery storage and it is also specifically supported in part
a), iii. NPF4 does not question the nature of the technology or the level of need for it. Such
support is given to help facilitate deployment of renewable energy which in turn would help
decarbonise the electricity network. Although the principle of battery storage as essential
infrastructure is supported, it is not unconditional. There are still a range of impacts which
policy 11 asks to be assessed in part e), including landscape and visual impacts.”
His decision can be read in full here
Update September 2025 – This case is now the subject of a Judicial Review.
An explanation of the case can be found here
0 Comments