BOSSES at Robert Gordon’s College in Aberdeen are battling plans for a battery storage facility in Cults – arguing it could put pupils in danger.
Their letter against the proposal is just one of 108 that have been submitted to Aberdeen City Council.
Flexion Energy UK Storage wants to create the 40MW development on land at Newton of Pitfodels.
READ MORE: John Swinney says SNP election victory will see party request indyref2
The proposed 1.9 hectare site is located near the Countesswells Playing Fields, which provide outdoor sports space for pupils all year round.
But, school leaders have lodged their opposition to the plan over safety fears for youngsters.
They argued that a fire at the storage site could put the playing fields at risk from “potentially toxic vapour, fumes, or smoke”.
The location of a cable connecting the proposed battery storage site to Craigiebuckler Substation was also a concern.
It is believed that an underground connection would be placed along Countesswells Road, which runs along the top of the playing fields.
READ MORE: In full: John Swinney's SNP election manifesto launch speech
School chiefs fear this will impact the use of the playing fields during construction and in the event of any potential incidents.
Dr Wendy Ratcliffe lives near the site, which she claims is “entirely inappropriate” for the proposed development.
She said that a “major” concern for her is the dangers and risks to residents and users of the playing fields, footpaths, Hazelhead Park, and businesses nearby.
Dr Ratcliffe added: “Storage battery plants have been known to be associated with accidents involving major fires which are very difficult to extinguish and release
of lithium related toxic gases.
“Were this to happen, surrounding woodlands would be highly combustible and this could result in an environmental catastrophe.”
READ MORE: Scottish website expert brilliantly humiliates Nigel Farage
Fellow neighbour Ellen Robinson also raised fears over dangerous fumes.
She said: “The battery facility is located too close to the Robert Gordon’s playing fields. Any fire to occur would immediately impact anyone using the pitches.
“The prevailing direction wind is from the west and would immediately engulf the fields and residents of Airyhall in the toxic smoke that arises from fires at battery storage facilities.”
Meanwhile Dr Kejian Wu raised worries that the battery facility could damage the Pitfodels Conservation Area.
The Aberdeen University lecturer, who is also an experienced petroleum engineering scientist, suggested the area could be at risk of thermal runaway.
READ MORE: 'Utterly depressing': Keith Brown slams 'demonisation' of migrants during TV debate
Dr Wu stated this can lead to fire, explosion, and the release of toxic gases or water runoff, posing significant hazards to the surrounding environment.
He said: “Residents should not be exposed to this risk, and Aberdeen City
Council has a duty to protect them.
“The aftermath of any leakage or fire and the associated cleanup costs, which could extended beyond the site, could be considerable for the local authority.”
Braeside and Mannofield Community Council also voiced their opposition to the “highly inappropriate” development.
They claimed the storage facility had the potential to bring unwanted noise to the “peaceful and tranquil” surrounding area and beyond.
READ MORE: 30 jobs to go as historic firm shuts Fife site and moves production to England
The group also objected on the grounds that it would damage precious city land.
“The developer uses the argument that building a BESS (Battery-Electric Substation) is an environmentally good thing to do.
“In an appropriate site, where there is no impact on people or the environment, this is a reasonable premise.
“However, destroying valuable and protected greenbelt land within Aberdeen to achieve this completely negates any environmental benefit.”
In her handwritten objection, Patricia Milne raised fears over fire, noise, and the safety of children using the nearby playing field.
READ MORE: 'Tactical vote' group branded 'Labour front' over party links
She mentioned “constant flooding” concerns at Countesswells, and the fact the road leading to the entrance of the proposed site is frequently closed.
The neighbour also said the surrounding roads were “really not suitable” for the heavy vehicles and disruption that would be involved during construction.
And, she had some worries about the impact the site would have on wildlife.
“Obviously use of the Countesswells site would have a knock-on effect onto the bordering areas,” she explained.
“Any loss of the beautiful trees in the area will be detrimental, there are nesting buzzards and owls in those trees.
“There are also bats in the area, not to mention the deer, swallows and foxes.
“Both the bats and swallows would be affected by the noise levels produced by the battery storage.”
Battery storage facilities store and release energy generated from renewable sources, such as wind turbines and solar farms.
Developers argue this new development would help Scotland reach its net zero targets.
A “safety management plan” has been submitted alongside the application, which says the “the incidence of fire events at BESS facilities is low”.
But it adds: “Where a battery cell produces more heat than it can effectively dissipate, an uncontrolled release of heat energy can happen, referred to as ‘thermal runway’.”
The documents stress a range of mitigation measures proposed to deal with the risk of a blaze.
You can view the plans for yourself here.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here