I visited the Cockenzie Energy Park exhibitions at which Scott Hobbs Planning presented rather limited information on Scottish Enterprise’s proposals.

The project has no website and is not mentioned on the Scottish Enterprise website.

This proposed project would drive a huge wedge of industrial development between Prestonpans and Cockenzie, from the shore almost to the A1. There would be no coast road and possibly no linking road at all north of the A1.

The envelope for development covers most of the Greenhills, all of the area covered by the power station and coal yard, the historic Waggonway path, the Battle of Prestonpans site and a good slice of the area earmarked for the Blindwells new town.

I was assured the Waggonway and battlefield would be left untouched; if so, I would like to see this reflected in the envelope maps. This is the second recent proposal to build on these sites.

One requirement, stated in the National Renewables Infrastructure Plan (NRIP) report, but not highlighted at the exhibition, is to facilitate the vertical transport of turbines and towers. This would require extensive permanent gantries more than 100 metres high – more than two-thirds of the height of the present Cockenzie chimneys.

The planning envelope also includes a large offshore area with a 400m pier, also 100 metres high – it will not be a pretty sight and it will dominate the view from much of East Lothian and beyond.

The effect of these plans on the local community would be immense, leading to a huge loss of recreational space, loss of footpaths (including the current route of the John Muir Way so recently ‘relaunched’ by the Scottish Government), loss of social cohesion of the 3 Harbours area, increased journey times and distance, increased traffic, round-the-clock noise, permanent illumination and pollution.

There would need to be compelling reasons to undertake such a project in this location – but there are none.

The site is marketed to attract potential users but none are identified. The site may be used for manufacturing, but may simply be used as a buffer store for items made elsewhere to be shipped out.

So why Cockenzie? When I asked which other sites had been considered I was offered an email copy of a report which explored all the alternatives. After my second visit I collected enough information to locate the two ‘National Renewables Infrastructure Plan’ stages 1 and 2.

These documents, produced by Scottish Enterprise, list a number of possible locations and there are two interesting features. Firstly, Cockenzie does not appear in either document. Secondly, neither document narrows down the list. These documents do not explain the decision process.

Notably absent from the exhibits was any mention of ‘Energy Park Fife’, another Scottish Enterprise Project at Methil, opened in 2011 with identical objectives. It has attracted only one potential new user – and even this depends on the success of a cutting edge 7MW turbine design.

The obvious question is, ‘Why is a second site needed when the first is underused?’ The answer from SE is that EP Fife is too small. However, SE’s own estimate of the area needed for production of 100 turbines per year is eight hectares, while the space available at EP Fife is 54 hectares (134 acres).

This proposal should not be allowed to progress because: - It aims to provide for the largest conceivable development without any concrete reason to believe that any market player or group of players requires it. Many of the statements made by Scott Hobbs Planning are preceded by “the market tells us...”. Let us see the market research; - It will blight a huge area and has stalled progress on the Blindwells development of much-needed homes; - SE has a defined timeline for taking possession of the site but no timeline for signing up partners. Without a lead partner who genuinely needs an area larger than that available at EP Fife and who is firmly committed, there is a high risk of small ad-hoc developments of loosely energy-related enterprises on the site. This would not justify the loss of amenity to the local population but would be irreversible; - The site is closely bordered by residential areas. More than 15,000 people – 15 per cent of the population of the county – live within a short walk of the site; - There are other sites, such as those listed in the NRIP, that are capable of hosting most partners’ likely requirements. Many of these sites are well away from residential areas and are completely brownfield sites, which Cockenzie is not; - Scottish Enterprise have a duty of transparency but a great deal of detail has not been openly disclosed, particularly the vertical scale of the proposal and the existence of another under-used site at Methil; - At the very least this process needs to be re-run with full disclosure, including a 3D model showing the planning envelope with respect to existing buildings, artists’ impressions of the ‘before and after’ view from several points along the coast from Edinburgh to Gullane, together with details of whatever mitigation measures are proposed; and, - There are now four proposals for the power station site and surrounding area, all of which are avoiding space that might be required by another. Planning to allow all of these to potentially proceed will result in disastrous blight.Residents beware.

David Chapman Prestonpans