Update on Recent Taynuilt Bess Appeal
Argyll and Bute Council · 17 December 2025
Back to Planning, Protective Services and Licensing Committee — 17 December 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
1 ARGYLL AND BUTE COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH PLANNING, PROTECTIVE SERVICES AND LICENSING COMMITTEE UPDATE ON RECENT TAYNUILT BESS APPEAL _________________________________________________________________________ OUR REFERENCE: 24/02083/PP DPEA REFERENCE: PPA-130-2094 CASE DETAIL: Installation of an energy storage facility including battery enclosures, transformers, substation, grid connection, infrastructure, earthworks, vehicular access, landscaping and associated works SITE ADDRESS: Land to the immediate west of Taynuilt Substation, Taynuilt APPLICANT: Downing Renewable Developments STATUS: Appeal Allowed by decision dated 14 November 2025 _______________________________________________________________________ 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Members may recall that determination of this application was initially deferred at PPSL to hold a pre-determination hearing before making a decision to approve or refuse the proposals. Officers had recommended that the application should be approved subject to conditions. Following this PPSL decision to hold a hearing, the applicant subsequently lodged an appeal against non-determination in advance of the proposed hearing date removing the determination of the application from the Planning Authority. This is an unusual occurrence but is within the rights of the applicant to do so. 1.2 This report summarises the decision made by the Reporter appointed by the DPEA 2. RECOMMENDATION 2.1 Members are asked to note the contents of the report. 3. REPORTERS CONCLUSIONS (Paragraph Numbers taken from Appeal Decision) The following excerpts have been taken from the Reporter’s conclusions: Preliminary Matters (Please note these paragraphs are not numbered in the appeal decision) “Whilst there have been criticisms of this decision being taken out of the hands of the council, the appellant has exercised a statutory right of appeal as the application had not been determined by the council within prescribed timescales. I noted requests for a hearing to be held to allow the community to express its views on this proposal. The purpose of a hearing would ordinarily be to explore contradictory or unclear written evidence. In this case I am satisfied that I have sufficient information on all matters, including those raised in representations from the local community together with my own observations during my site inspection, to be able to determine this appeal without the need for a hearing.”
Page 2
2 Principle of Development “3. NPF4 policy 11 ‘Energy’ provides overarching support in principle for all forms of renewable, low-carbon and zero emissions technologies, and this explicitly extends to battery energy storage as established by part a)(iii) of the policy. This in-principle support is framed more widely by policy 1 ‘Tackling the climate and nature crises’, which requires significant weight to be given to these matters in decision-making. 5. It is also beyond the scope of this appeal to explore whether locations, other than that proposed, may be more preferable for the development to be located. There is no policy basis for such an approach, and I must assess the proposal on its own merits, rather than undertake a comparative assessment of theoretical alternative sites. I have noted that the appellant has provided a site selection report which sets out why, in its view, the appeal site is preferable from an environmental and technical perspective. It is still the case that an unsuitable site would not become appropriate simply because of an absence of a better alternative in the area.” Landscape and Visual Effects “9. The site is well contained within the landscape, by virtue of rising land to the south, and trees and vegetation along the southern verge of the A85. Despite the development’s rather incongruous character in a rural setting, once beyond the immediate vicinity of the proposed development its effect on landscape character would rapidly diminish. The very limited wider visibility of the site, the fairly modest scale of the proposed development and its proximity to the existing substation combine to limit its effect on the character of the landscape in which it would be seen directly, or seen from indirectly. I am satisfied that the development’s overall impact on landscape features and character would be negligible on this basis. 10. The visual effects of the development would similarly be highly localised. There would be glimpsing and partial views of the development from the A85, which would be seen in the context of the neighbouring substation. It would not interrupt any longer range views available from the road. It would be sufficiently distant from Taynuilt to not have any bearing on the setting of the village and the visual amenity this provides.” Noise/Residential Amenity “17. In my judgement, the greatest potential for the proposed development to have adverse residential amenity effects would be as a result of noise. Noise is one of the various considerations identified by NPF4 policy 11(e) and LDP policy 30. A revised noise impact assessment (dated 31 March 2025) was submitted by the appellant to the council, which predicts that the highest noise levels would be at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors (which as identified above are Fairy Hill Croft and the consented dwelling on land at croft 4) but this would not exceed the representative background sound level. 18. The assessment inevitably applies a number of assumptions in making that prediction. Given the appellant has not to date specified the precise equipment manufacturers and models for example, it is conceivable that the noise emissions could differ, but the assessment is intended to present a realistic worst case scenario. The council’s environmental health officer has reviewed the assessment, and accepts its findings, including that internal noise levels set by BS8233: 2014 would not be exceeded at the nearest properties, whether windows are open or closed. I attach weight to this finding, but nevertheless, I consider that in order to provide an adequate safeguard against noise
Page 3
3 disturbance occurring, a condition should be imposed (which I note the council has also recommended) to require the development to not exceed the noise levels predicted in the appellant’s revised noise impact assessment. Subject to this requirement, there is no reason to conclude that noise would result in a loss of residential amenity at any property. 19. In conclusion, I am satisfied that all existing and consented dwellings in the general vicinity of the proposed development would not be subject to a significant loss of residential amenity, with most properties being entirely unaffected. In this regard the proposal does not give rise to any conflict with the relevant provisions of NPF4 policy 11 and LDP policy 30.” Fire Risk “21. It is not the role of the planning system to manage fire risk, and this is addressed by other regulatory regimes. It is however capable of being a material consideration insofar as where there might be spatial and land use implications for managing any residual risk. 22. Whilst the possibility of a BES fire cannot be ruled out, it also cannot be described as likely. In my view it is reasonable to assert from the policy support provided for BES by NPF4 policy 11 (which is provided without any reference to locational principles relating to fire risk) that there is no reason to anticipate or expect a fire to occur. There is nothing before me which would distinguish a BES from many other less novel types of development in terms of residual fire risk. 23. There would be particular characteristics of a BES fire, should it occur, giving rise to specific fire containment and suppression methods. This has led to the National Fire Chiefs Council publishing best practice guidance for fire and rescue services, which also contains design principles that have some limited relevance to the planning process. This proposed development would provide two separate access points to the facility, together with a perimeter road. The red line development boundary is drawn sufficiently widely to provide flexibility over the final alignment of the access roads, so that at least one access could be used in the event of a fire regardless of wind direction. A water tank is proposed, to provide an immediate adequate on-site supply. Sufficient separation between the BES units and proposed landscaping/vegetation screening could be ensured as part of a scheme to be required by planning condition, thereby minimising any risk of a fire spreading.” “28. Concern has been raised that water used for fire suppression would contain pollutants, with run-off potentially entering the River Awe. The proposal is accompanied by a surface water drainage strategy which takes this into account and outlines how this risk would be mitigated. Whilst it is incumbent on the appellant to manage the residual direct and indirect risk of a fire including the potential for pollution, as already noted my assessment must confine itself to the operational nature of the development and land use implications of this. It is not relevant to a development management decision to have regard to all possible impacts of a fire when the likelihood of such an event is low. 29. All told, whilst I acknowledge the concerns expressed by some of the community relating to the possibility of a battery fire, I am satisfied that, from a land use perspective, this matter is not a constraint to development for the reasons outlined above. Detailed matters of access, and buffers between battery units and vegetation can be secured by condition, but the residual possibility of a fire occurring, or hypothetical broader implications of such an incident, are not matters for the planning system to regulate. This is further reinforced by SEPA’s position that it only provides site-specific advice on the implications of accidents if it falls within the Control of Major Accident Hazard (COMAH) regulatory regime, which BES developments do not. I do not consider many of the provisions of NPF4 policy 23 (‘Health and safety’) to be engaged, as a BES proposal is not ordinarily deemed to involve hazardous substances, nor is it recognised as a major accident hazard. Part (b) of
Page 4
4 NPF4 policy 4 ‘Natural places’ has been satisfied by an appropriate assessment having been carried out.” Biodiversity Net Gain “33. NPF4 policy 3 ‘Biodiversity’ includes criteria which apply to major development. The findings of the ecological appraisal submitted by the appellant indicates that there would be limited effects on protected species or their supporting habitats, and it recommends various good practice measures to mitigate the residual effects. On the basis of this evidence I consider that there would be limited scope for negative effects even without mitigation, so subject to conditions to require the suggested measures to be implemented, I am satisfied that the mitigation hierarchy has been followed. Part (iv) of the policy also requires significant biodiversity enhancements to be provided, in addition to mitigation. The ecological appraisal makes suggestions in this regard, and I consider there to be clear potential to approach proposed planting for the purposes of screening the development in a way that would also maximise its biodiversity benefits. The red line site boundary is sufficiently extensive to enable on-site significant biodiversity enhancement, but this is a matter which can appropriately be addressed by requiring a scheme to be submitted to and agreed by the council. Subject to this, the proposal would accord with NPF4 policy 3 overall.” Overall Conclusions “36. There is explicit policy support in principle for the proposed development, and the development plan is also instructive that significant weight is to be given both to the contribution it would make to greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets (achieved here by storing renewable energy until it is required) and the climate crisis more widely. 37. I acknowledge that there are widely held concerns and objections to the proposal from some of the local community, but these partly stem from safety concerns which extend beyond the scope of my assessment. Based on my foregoing reasoning I find the adverse effects of the development to be limited and highly localised. Some of these matters would be required to be subject to conditions, as would other considerations such as the need for archaeological investigations, and decommissioning plans. In the face of the policy presumption in favour of development and having assessed the site-specific characteristics and its suitability for the proposed development, I find there to be no conflict with the development plan in terms of applicable thematic or locational considerations, against which the in-principle support would need to be balanced.” “39. I therefore conclude, for the reasons set out above, that the proposed development accords overall with the relevant provisions of the development plan and that there are no material considerations which would still justify refusing to grant planning permission. I have considered all the other matters raised insofar as these are capable of being material considerations, but there are none which would lead me to alter my conclusions.” Full details of the case can be found at the following link: Scottish Government - DPEA - Case Details 4.0 IMPLICATIONS Policy: None. Financial: None. Legal: None
Page 5
5 HR: None Customer Service: None Risk: None Climate Change: None Fairer Scotland Duty: None Equalities: None Consumer Duty: None Island Communities: None Children’s Rights and Wellbeing: None Author: David Moore Date: 28.11.25 Fergus Murray Head of Development and Economic Growth