A Cambuslang battery storage scheme has been refused on appeal because its emergency vehicle access arrangements were considered inadequate. Reporter Philip McLean dismissed GPC 678 Ltd’s appeal on 12th October 2026 for a 40MW facility on land west-south-west of Gilbertfield Farm, South Lanarkshire.
The decision leaves the proposal without planning permission, despite the reporter finding that it complied with the development plan overall. For nearby residents, the decisive issue was how fire crews could reach the compound safely, rather than an objection to battery storage in principle.
I would pay particular attention to that distinction when assessing another energy site. Meeting policies on location, landscape and climate benefits can be a strong starting point, but a serious unresolved safety issue can still justify refusal. Here, an alternative emergency access could not simply be left to a condition.
Why Cambuslang battery storage was acceptable in principle
The proposal involved battery units with associated infrastructure, a substation, fencing, cameras, security lighting and landscaping. Electricity would be stored and exported back to the grid. The planned connection point was Clydesmill substation on Westburn Road, approximately two kilometres north of the site.
The official case record and full decision, reference PPA-380-2144, explain why the reporter accepted a green belt location. He treated the scheme as essential infrastructure, rather than renewable generation, because the electricity stored would not necessarily have come from renewable sources.
The developer’s search had considered 18 other potential sites, including four wholly or partly outside the green belt. Although the search evidence could have been clearer, the reporter was satisfied that the need for this location had been adequately demonstrated.
He also found that the scheme’s modest height, its position below a break of slope and the surrounding landform limited its wider visual effects. Proposed planting would take years to establish, but the development would not undermine the relevant purposes of the green belt.
One vehicle entrance became the decisive weakness
The Cambuslang battery storage proposal had a single vehicular access, using and extending the farm track from Gilbertfield Wynd within the nearby residential area. It did not provide a second vehicle entrance or a perimeter loop around the compound.
The National Fire Chiefs Council’s guidance for grid-scale energy storage advises that an alternative access is preferable, taking account of wind direction. Where that is not practicable, a perimeter loop may offer an alternative. The concern is avoiding a situation in which crews must drive through a vapour or gas cloud to reach an incident.
The proposed access would be downwind of the compound under the prevailing west to south-westerly winds. A secondary pedestrian gate was proposed on the south-west boundary, at the foot of an earthworks slope with agricultural land beyond. The reporter considered that arrangement inconsistent with the guidance.
In the decision’s concluding assessment, the lack of an “alternative emergency access” justified refusal even though the development plan supported the scheme overall. The reporter found no compelling evidence for setting aside the guidance in this case.
Low fire risk did not remove the access problem
The Cambuslang battery storage decision accepted that a fire would be unlikely and that design and monitoring measures would minimise the risk. The point was that the risk would not be zero, and the proposed route still had to be assessed against that possibility.
The reporter distinguished controls properly dealt with under other regulatory systems from matters of site planning and design. He considered emergency access and water supply capable of being material planning considerations. Scottish Fire and Rescue Service had been invited to comment during the appeal but did not respond.
A proposed 228,000-litre water tank was considered sufficient to address the water-supply issue, subject to a condition. That did not resolve the separate access concern. No additional vehicle route had been identified, and no party had suggested a second entrance or loop could be secured by condition.
I would therefore check both the physical route and the land needed to deliver it early in a project’s design. An argument that safety details can be agreed later is much weaker where the necessary access option has not been demonstrated.
Power output is different from stored energy
The Cambuslang battery storage appeal also illustrates why capacity figures need careful description. The proposal was presented as 40MW, a measure of power output. Its total energy-storage capacity was not specified directly in the submissions.
The outline safety plan referred to illustrative battery units of 5MWh each. With 19 units proposed, the reporter calculated a potential total of 95MWh, well above the guidance’s 1MWh threshold. That calculation should not be presented as a separately confirmed final design specification.
The developer argued that one vehicle entrance was proportionate to the scale of the Cambuslang battery storage scheme, but the reporter was not persuaded that the guidance was less relevant to the proposal. He also distinguished two other appeal decisions because their access circumstances differed materially.
Other policy findings did not change the outcome
The reporter found no policy conflict on matters including heritage, biodiversity, transport, residential amenity, soils, flooding and drainage, subject to conditions where appropriate. He attached significant weight to the contribution that energy storage could make to a more flexible, decarbonised electricity system.
For the Cambuslang battery storage scheme, however, those benefits did not overcome the emergency-access deficiency. The decision is specific to the layout and evidence before the reporter, rather than a general prohibition on battery facilities in the green belt.
A separate question about environmental assessment and the associated grid connection was left unresolved because the appeal was dismissed on its merits. The decision therefore does not establish that the connection could lawfully be excluded from assessment. Applicants should keep that question separate from the emergency-access lesson.
0 Comments