Renfrewshire councillors have warned they have “no teeth” to stop the growing spread of battery storage and solar farm developments across green belt land as concerns mount over the scale of renewable energy infrastructure projects in the area.
The concerns were raised during a meeting of Renfrewshire Council’s Planning and Climate Change Policy Board on Tuesday, 26th May, as councillors discussed a proposed 400MW battery energy storage system near Houston Road. The application is ultimately for Scottish Government ministers to determine, with the council acting as a consultee.
During the debate, councillors questioned whether local authorities had enough power to influence major renewable energy developments being proposed across Renfrewshire countryside and green belt areas.
Alison Ann-Dowling said the true scale of the developments only became clear once construction began.
She told the meeting: “It is only when you start to see it being built and spread that you realise the true scale of it and the impact that it has on the environment.”
Referring to the growing number of developments in the area, she added: “Without going too far on the observations, it is a bit like a Blade Runner 2 film, in which he is flying over miles and miles of solar farms.”
The comment referenced the futuristic sci-fi films known for their industrialised dystopian landscapes.
Councillor Ann-Dowling then questioned whether councils had enough influence over nationally determined projects.
She asked: “Do we have any teeth here, or do we need to look at it at a more political level?”
Planning officer David Love replied: “Ultimately, NPF4 sets out national policy and supports UCs within the green belt.
“Until national policy changes, it is likely to continue to be supported.”
Councillor Ann-Dowling responded: “The answer is no, we do not have teeth.”
Jim Paterson said councillors should consider lobbying the Scottish Government over the issue.
He said: “Councillor Nicolson is right that we spend all this time defending the green belt from 10, 15 houses, and we are losing it to something that you have described as a dystopian sci-fi film that nobody really wants to look at.
“I understand the need for a lot of those facilities, but there needs to be a balance in where they are put, and that is what is best for us.”
Councillor Paterson also raised concerns about the concentration of developments in Renfrewshire.
He added: “We were told that one of those facilities would be enough, but all of a sudden there are two, and we start to wonder whether there are other areas that do not have those facilities put in and that we are getting to the short end of the deal.”
Iain Nicolson had earlier raised concerns about the increasing number of renewable developments being proposed across the area.
However, Ben Smith stressed that councillors were not objecting to renewable energy infrastructure in principle.
He said: “We are not objecting in principle to this. We are objecting to the fact that we have not been provided with the adequate information to support it.”
Councillor Smith added that battery storage projects were important to reducing reliance on more environmentally damaging forms of electricity generation.
He told the board: “Continuing to use the alternative main method of generating electricity is worse for the environment.
“It would be worse for the environment than having battery storage.”
He added: “I do not know whether there is an unfair concentration of those facilities in Renfrewshire. If that is a question that needs to be answered, that would be fair enough.”
The board ultimately agreed to object to the proposal because councillors believed insufficient detail had been provided about the development and its wider impacts.