Robert Marshall-Andrews

Super Critical Power Station at Kingsnorth, Hoo

Medway Council has approved the planning application to replace the coal fired Power Station at Kingsnorth.

The matter was determined by Medway Council's Development Control Committee on the 2nd January 2007. Please use the following web link to the committee papers for the meeting that originally considered the application. The Planning Applications pdf file can be found under 5) a) - Agenda item 1) page 5. http://www.medway.gov.uk/index/council/committees/commdoc/commlist/viewagenda.htm?id=498

Refusal would have automatically led to a public enquiry. I have taken a considerable interest in this matter and have been in contact with the applicant company (E-ON), the Secretary of State, the council and objectors, notably Greenpeace.

My main reservations are: Environmental - CO2 emissions from the new coal fired plant is only marginally improved on the current one: Political - as China builds a new fossil fuelled station a week the UK should lead by example: and Economic - there have been some developments (including the possibility and no more) that the new power station will be capable of providing some combined heat and power, however crucial matters such as carbon capture & storage have simply not been resolved.

I give my full support for the call to hold a public enquiry on the non-provision of carbon capture & storage and actions that will allow combined heat and power to be provided to nearby communities. The proposed Thames Gateway new community development, the size of a market town, at Chattenden is only matter of 3 to 4 miles away from Kingsnorth.

Below is a copy of a letter which I wrote to Secretary of State John Hutton MP on the 4 February.

The Rt Hon John Hutton MP
Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Re.: Power Station at Kingsnorth, North Kent

E-ON currently operates an existing sub critical coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth, situated on the Hoo peninsula within my constituency.

You will be well aware that Medway Council has advised you that at its meeting on the 2nd January it agreed to raise no objection to planning permission being granted for the construction of E-ON's two replacement Advanced Super Critical (ASC) coal-fired generating units at Kingsnorth, subject to a number of conditions. The council also called upon your office to,

note the considerable external public concern about this application for a new coal-fired power station in Medway;

2. agree to hold a public inquiry so that those with a legitimate interest are afforded a public and meaningful opportunity to state their reasons for opposing this development;

3. explain how the proposals accord with the Government's stated objectives for future power needs and energy generation in the White Paper for Energy - Meeting the Energy Challenge - May 2007 (CM7124) specifically stating how the proposed power station will be part of the Government's target to cut CO2 emissions by 60% by 2050 stating also how it will help to improve the reliability of the nation's energy supplies and how it will help to ensure that every home and business has adequate and affordable heat and power;

4. ensure that combined heat and power is made available from any permitted power station to benefit new and existing communities in Medway and Thames Gateway;

5. ensure that sufficient land and resources are made available to achieve future carbon capture at any proposed coal-fired power plant in Medway.

I am enclosing a copy of a letter which I wrote to your predecessor, Alistair Darling, on the 30 April 2007. The central issues, in my previous letter, remain exactly the same. There have been some developments (including the possibility and no more) that the new power station will be capable of providing some combined heat and power, however crucial matters such as carbon capture & storage have simply not been resolved.

I give my full support for the call to hold a public enquiry and actions that will allow combined heat and power to be provided to nearby communities. The proposed Thames Gateway new community development, the size of a market town, at Chattenden is only matter of 3 to 4 miles away from Kingsnorth. I understand that at present combined heat and power is not afforded the same status as other utilities.

I would be very grateful of the opportunity to discuss this matter with you at the earliest opportunity. It maybe advantages to involve Ministers Malcolm Wicks and Caroline Flint as their portfolios cover respectively Energy policy and Thames Gateway / eco-towns / low & zero-carbon housing.

My best wishes

Bob Marshall-Andrews

30 April 2007

The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

Re.: Power Stations at Kingsnorth

You will be well aware the Eon have made application under s 36 of the Electricity Act for two supercritical coal fired power stations generating 800 MW each at Kingsnorth, situated on the Hoo peninsula within my constituency. They will (by 2012) replace the existing 2GW coal powered plant on the site.

This is an application of very considerable, perhaps historic, importance. It is the first major application for a new fossil fuelled plant since Kyoto and will have a significant impact both upon climate change, the environment and our own international and self imposed obligations until 2050. It also represents a political and technological benchmark against which we are bound to be judged both as a country and a government.

I have met with scientific officers from Eon who have been helpful and open in their discussions and in the provision of information. I have had a long meeting with Jim Footner of Greenpeace (who oppose the application) and with interested constituents. I have very considerable reservations about this development. Before I set them out in detail tt may me relevant to say that I am fully cognisant of the scale of our energy problems and requirements set out in the Energy White Paper (EWP). My constituency has historically provided a substantial energy contribution from diverse sources and I have perforce acquired a wider knowledge as a result. I also believe that the Government is playing an increasing vital and valuable role as a world leader against climate change and environmental degradation. I bear this particularly in mind in the third of my reservations which centres on a profound loss of opportunity. In this respect it may be that particular knowledge of this part of the country and its potential for development accumulated over three parliamentary terms will be of some small assistance.

I have three main reservations, environmental, political and economic. I will deal with them separately.

(i) Environmental

The new plants would achieve a marginal improvement over the present CO2 emissions, wholly insufficient in itself to satisfy aspirations after Kyoto and the present state of urgency relating to global warming. Substantial reliance is placed upon developments in the science of carbon capture (confidentially anticipated by 2015.) I do not doubt the bona fides and optimism of those deploying this argument. As a non scientist I do, however, have grave misgivings when it is set into the context of the gravity of the risks we now certainly face. This achieves greater weight and cogency by the day.

The plants will produce 4.5m tonnes of CO2 per annum which represents over 5 percent of our target reduction of 30 per cent by 2020. In order to come near our Kyoto targets we now rely heavily on Emissions Trading. Our binding European targets will not allow for this margin.

Carbon capture, even if effective and developed, will still be available only three years after the new plants come on line in 2012. Timescales such as that may historically have been acceptable. I doubt whether rapidly changing public opinion will endorse it in five years time given the speed and urgency of scientific warning.

Furthermore, if carbon capture has not been totally, provably developed two possibilities emerge. The plants may go on year on year awaiting both technology and investment with appalling environmental consequences or they are shut down as a result of renewed government action following escalating global warming and public concern. In those circumstances the effect on energy supply will be serious.

(ii) Political

At a time when Britain's international status has undoubtedly been eroded (deservedly or not is another matter) we have, I believe, a proud and valuable record on this, the most important global issue bar none. We are uniquely placed in terms of geography, historical tradition and technology to achieve something close to world leadership inside and outside Europe. The effect would not only have the obvious environmental impact ("saving the world" is, for once, not a cliché) it is profoundly important to our national and political raison d'etre. As China builds a new fossil fuelled power station a week it is essential that we retain the authority to lead by example in addition to rhetoric. In this respect I believe that the need for and position of this development may provide significant opportunity (below).

(iii) Opportunity and decentralised provision

Greenpeace and others oppose the development outright. They make a convincing case but I believe that there is a particular local dimension which deserves serous consideration by the applicant and by government.

Kingsnorth lies on the Hoo peninsula (close to the airport proposal at Cliffe which you may well remember). At the eastern end of the peninsula is the Isle of Grain which contains the elderly Grain power station, Thamesport (the most modern deep water port in Europe) and the Transco refinery site which is the biggest industrial development site in Europe. The potential of this area is enormous. A new facility has recently been commissioned for the importation of liquid gas and a vast offshore wind farm is to be constructed by BP.

.
The development of the Transco site (acres ) has been a political and industrial preoccupation locally and nationally for many years. A number of projects have been considered (including a Freeport facility attached to Thameport). Development is inevitable. When this occurs there will, of course, be a truly massive demand for power and heat.

The opportunity for Combined Heat and Power Development (CHP) at the Kingsnorth site is obvious. Britain is well behind target for CHP (10GWe) and the lead has been taken by others notably Denmark (which has achieved a 95 pc fuel efficiency by this approach.).

This solution on the Hoo peninsula, whilst obvious, has complexities of which I am well aware, not least sheer scale. Transco's intentions and plans are far from clear and the use of port facilities such as Thameport (Hutchison Wampoa) are part of a wider review.

In these circumstances there must be an over-arching role for government. The potential exists not only to resolve the immediate problems inherent in this application but to create a strategy and model of international importance.

I recently attended a meeting addressed by the Chancellor (and Bill Clinton) who repeatedly stressed the potential for industry and technology arising out of the challenge of climate change. The Hoo peninsula, one of the major energy producing areas in the South East, offers precisely this opportunity.

On a more anecdotal level, I recently had a meeting with Peter Truscott and a number of my constituents who live on the Hoo Marina Park. This community has 300 units classed as caravans but, in reality, long term, stable (and very attractive) small homes. They are reliant on calor gas, a supply which is an unregulated monopoly and prohibitively expensive. Kingsnorth is clearly visible from the park and the prospect of their watching tonnes of heat disappearing into the atmosphere contains a dreadful irony.

I have written at some (unusual) length as I believe this to be an issue of singular importance and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you in the near future.

My best wishes

Bob Marshall-Andrews

No airport @ Cliffe! Campaign 2002/3

And that's Official Government Policy. A job well done!

The proposal for a new international airport on the Hoo Peninsula ruffled many feathers locally - mine included - the area is a vital haven for bird and other wildlife.

I am delighted to report that the Government has now decided finally and without qualification to reject the concept of an airport at Cliffe. I have always asked for the earliest notification from ministers and this has been achieved.

This represents a huge and significant victory for community and environmental organisations and for thousands of local people who have campaigned long and hard for this result.

I feel extremely proud to have worked alongside so many of my constituents and to have ensured that the Government never underestimated our collective strength and determination. I am especially pleased that this campaign has been free from party politics...we have all pulled together regardless of our political differences and proved what can be done in these circumstances when everyone is under threat.

We may even have achieved something that goes beyond victory - it was inevitable that any consultation should include a coastal site (as formerly with Maplin Sands) but the campaign has given us the opportunity to demonstrate the unique values of both our communities and our environment.

This will undoubtedly ensure far greater protection from future development and the creation of a National Park.

The huge campaign to stop an international airport being built at Cliffe had gathered strength over recent months with several major reports concluding that it would be wrong to choose the area as an option.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), British Airways, British Airports Authority, the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England and Medway Council are among the organisations which had published evidence that was critical of Cliffe as a potential airport site. Even the Government's own Department of Transport's report questioned whether Cliffe would be a good idea due to the high risk of bird strikes.

I spoke with the Prime Minister and Ministers responsible armed with the information from these reports and passionate pleas from the people directly affected by the proposal. I stressed that it is essential that the Government notified us of its decision as soon as possible saying that it is totally unacceptable that these communities had been living under a dark shadow for so long.

I continue to speak to and correspond with the many local people who had been deeply worried by the proposal. To date I have answered more than 4,500 letters on the matter, attended meetings and rallies and finally in October co-hosting the RSPB Westminster lobby.

No Airport @ Cliffe reports

Please note: To read these reports, you will need to install Adobe Acrobat Reader.

• October 2002
• December 2002
• January 2003
• May 2003
• Summer 2003
• 05 August 2003
• 28 August 2003
• October 2003
• December 2003

Alternatively, please visit the campaign's website.