Battery storage risks being disregarded, claim critics

SPECIAL REPORT by OUR ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT

The flood of applications from a plethora of companies seeking to develop Battery Energy Storage Systems [BESS] at locations across the Scottish Borders is not being properly scrutinised, according to critics who claim planners and Scottish Government ministers are 'waving through' projects without insisting on rigorous environmental assessments.

There are allegations that correspondence from agents claiming that Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) costing upwards of £10,000 are not necessary can be misleading or inaccurate in some instances while opponents say scant regard is being paid to the potential risks of battery fires and pollution of water courses. 

The loss of significant amounts of agricultural land is another concern being voiced. And little if any heed is being paid to the cumulative effect on communities of construction traffic associated with BESS projects and windfarms, it is claimed.

The widespread criticism is refuted by Scottish Borders Council which claims its planning officers are carrying out their remit under the processing system. And BESS projects with more than 50MW of storage capacity have to be processed and decided by the Government's Energy Consents Unit (ECU).

Before a formal planning applications is submitted, the business promoting a BESS lodges a so-called scoping request which determines whether an EIA is required.

However, members of the public have no say at this stage. After seeking the views of its own officials, including transport and ecology specialists, the local authority decides on its recommendation to the ECU. In the overwhelming majority of scoping cases dealt with by the Borders local authority the outcome has been 'no EIA needed'.

A BESS is used to store electrical energy in lithium batteries, allowing it to be released later when needed, primarily to manage fluctuations in electricity supply from renewable sources such as windfarms or solar panels. The systems are housed in rows of units which can be the size of shipping containers.

The promoters of the Borders projects comprise a complex network of developers and consultants, many of them registered at addresses in England or in continental Europe. During the course of an application, control of the earmarked site for a BESS can change hands several times even before it becomes clear who will actually build the facility.

The countryside surrounding the burgh of Hawick is in danger of becoming festooned with 'green' energy projects, among them battery storage systems as well as scores of wind turbines at various upland locations. A growing volume of proposals has led to calls for a moratorium on further activity by the renewables industry.

When an EIA scoping request for a 90MW BESS at Calaburn, close to the town, was lodged last year by GSC Calaburn Farm Ltd., of Liverpool - a subsidiary of Green Switch Capital Ltd, of the same address - Bruce Mactaggart whose Green Dale farm lies close to the proposed site provided the planning authority with a detailed statement, setting out his concerns and suggesting an EIA was vital.

Mr Mactaggart wrote: "Due to the nature of the proposed development I am very concerned this could be exempt from an EIA. I hope you decide it is necessary to make sure the EIA is implemented as the project is a relatively new development in the renewable sector and needs close monitoring at present."

But he was told by planning officer Kyle Wise: "As per regulations, we do not consider public comments as part of our response (opinion) to EIA Screening Requests as to whether an EIA is required for the prospective development."

Mr Wise advised Mr Mactaggart to submit his concerns at the planning application stage, adding: "Unfortunately, your comments will not be considered otherwise in this EIA Screening Request/Opinion, as per legislation." 

A similar response was sent by Mr Wise to Michael Gallacher, of Whitehaugh House, near Calaburn, after he claimed an EIA assessment was "mandatory" in this case. His concerns about potential flooding, contamination of water sources and other environmental matters were copied to the local MP, MSP and to Hawick area councillors.

Mr Gallacher wrote: "It is unacceptable and undemocratic that an application such as this for a screening request is carried out without the public and local residents being able to comment and make representations to SBC".

A few days later Mr Wise told the ECU by letter: "It is the view of the Council as planning authority that the impacts of the proposal would not require to be subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment. Nevertheless, it is anticipated due to the scale and nature of the proposed development, it would pose environmental impacts that will require thorough assessment as part of any prospective planning application.”

The 19 pages of evidence opposing the need for an EIA at Calaburn was assembled by the applicant's 'agent', Renewable Planning Consultancy (RPC), whose Board member, Gerald Beelaerts van Blokland is also a director of GSC Calaburn Farm Ltd.

According to Mr Mactaggart, there were at least 36 'incorrect facts' in the RPC document, an issue which he pointed out to the planning department.

From August 2024, Green Switch Capital (GSC) and its collection of BESS promoting subsidiaries have been owned by Qair UK Holdings which is in turn controlled by French-based Jean-Marc Bouchet's Lucia Holding 2. GSC is now known as Qair Renewables UK Ltd.

The loss-making Green Switch business owed several millions of pounds to another renewables business. Its debts were settled as part of the sale agreement with Qair.

Mr Mactaggart told us: "By advising the ECU as the SBC Planning department. has done in this instance, they are showing a complete disregard for Environmental Health issues. Their decision in the Calaburn BESS plan has been taken in the knowledge there in excess of thirty inaccuracies in the screening request. 

"As a result I can only assume SBC planning department will be happy to defend themselves at a later date based on incorrect information."

He believed that BESS proposals needed to be investigated fully before they were allowed to be installed.

"Extensive Carbon Footprint reports need to be completed to illustrate the 'greenness' of these systems.  Unfortunately due to the legislation Renewable Planning Consultants were able to say anything in order for them to avoid a vital part of our democratic system as highlighted in this case."

Only last week, an EIA scoping request was made on behalf of Stirches Solar Farm Ltd. for the construction and operation of a proposed Renewable Energy Park, including a co-located solar farm and BESS on 54 hectares to the south and east of Stirches Mains farm, Hawick. The applicants are part of London-based IB Vogt UK Ltd.

In 2023, SBC received a Screening Request for a proposed solar farm on the site. The council told Third Revolution Projects, agents for the applicants: "It is the view of the Council as planning authority that the impacts of the proposal would not require to be subject of an EIA. Nevertheless, the scale of the proposed development is vast, and its impacts will require thorough assessment as part of any prospective planning application”.

Stirches Solar Farm Ltd was formerly a subsidiary of Tyler Hill Solar Ltd which in turn was controlled by Brit Renewables Ltd.

Eighteen months ago, Ampyr Solar Europe acquired the solar PV and BESS portfolio from Tyler Hill comprising sites across the UK.

This time round the agents for Stirches Solar Farm Ltd. conclude in their 15-page letter to SBC: "The nature of effects arising are not anticipated to be adverse and no significant environmental effects

are predicted. We therefore request that the Scottish Ministers confirm that the Proposed Development

does not constitute EIA Development, and an EIA is therefore not required to support an application for

Section 36 consent".

And yet IB Vogt UK's strategic report for 2023 states at page four under the heading Community and Environment: "The company carries out environmental impact assessments on all projects to ensure the impact of all activities are assessed appropriately".

A Scottish Borders Council spokesperson, responding to our detailed request for comment, said: “Any proposal with a combined electricity generating or storage capacity of 50MW or more must be made to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) for determination. 

“That means that the Council has the same standing as communities in the consultation process and is required to provide views on its own behalf, not those of other parties, who have their own opportunity to comment directly on the application to the ECU.

“The Council’s remit is to assess the planning implications of the proposal; in other words, to assess the proposal against development plan policies and make any technical assessments that it has responsibility for, such as landscape and visual impacts, access, noise and the effect of these on residential amenity.

“Our response will be considered by the ECU as part of the decision-making process in the same way as any responses submitted to the ECU by members of the public or Community Councils.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “Scotland has some of the most stringent environmental impact regulations anywhere in the world and our planning and consenting system ensures that local communities can always have their say.

“It is untrue to suggest that projects are being ‘waved through’ without consideration of an EIA.  When applications are submitted for EIA screening, they are assessed on a case-by-case basis against Schedule 3 of the Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017 and in line with the other requirements of the Regulations".