I would like to question the part played by East Lothian Council and individual councillors in bringing the proposed energy park to Cockenzie.

In April 2013 the Scottish Government published a draft ‘Main Issues Report’ as part of Scotland’s Third National Planning Framework. This document is available on the Scottish Government website at www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0042/00421073.pdf It identifies Cockenzie for base load generation (i.e the new CGT Power Station) and as a connection hub for offshore wind connection (i.e. the Inch Cape connection). There is also a single line reference to ‘potential for port-related development at Cockenzie’. There is no mention of an energy park or large-scale heavy industry.

At the council cabinet meeting on June 11, 2013, under agenda item 8, councillors were briefed on this report. The briefing contains this passage relating to Cockenzie: “Interestingly in this regard is the comment that there is potential for port-related development at Cockenzie. This is clearly something that ELC should pursue with the Scottish Government and relevant agencies.” The briefing and the minutes of the short discussion are available on the ELC website. From the minutes of the discussion only these two extracts apply to Cockenzie: Councillor MacKenzie welcomed the Main Issues Report (MIR), particularly in relation to the proposal for port-related development at Cockenzie; Councillor Berry spoke of the need for the council to be more ambitious for East Lothian. He suggested that the council should support the use of Cockenzie as a ferry port.

The decision, suggested in the council briefing, was to delegate the response to a senior council officer. In my opinion, this was an inadequate briefing considering the enormous potential impact and the issue deserved more consideration and stronger supervision.

On July 22, 2013, Councillor Stuart Currie, acting on behalf of the SNP Group on ELC, submitted a response to the MIR. This response concerned Cockenzie only, the important clause being: “There are substantial reserves of developable land, even allowing for the retention of an electricity generating use: if required, additional flexibility might be provided using some of the vacant land associated with the proposed Blindwells new settlement.” This document is available on the Scottish Government website at www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00431906.pdf What this means is that the SNP Group offered all the land surrounding the old power station – Greenhills, the coal yard, the battlefield, the Waggonway and a good slice of Blindwells – to be used for heavy industry with not one moment’s consideration for the quality of life of residents, many of whom live in homes built under planning permission relatively recently granted by the same councillors.

On July 17, 2013, ELC submitted its response. This covered a much wider range of issues, but as far as Cockenzie is concerned the effect is much the same, the important clause, identical with that of the SNP group, being: “There are substantial reserves of developable land, even allowing for the retention of an electricity generating use: if required, additional flexibility might be available by using some of the nearby vacant land associated with the proposed Blindwells new settlement.” To their small credit, ELC also pointed out the value of undeveloped coast as wild land – and then happily handed ours over to heavy industry.

The ELC response is available on the Scottish Government website at www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00431887.pdf The Scottish Government produced an ‘Analysis of Consultation Responses’, published in September 2013, which is available at www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0043/00437094.pdf In Paragraph 4.111 it states: “There were only a few comments referring specifically to the Cockenzie Power Station. Points tended to focus on the infrastructure and locational advantages that make Cockenzie well suited to its proposed role as part of National Development 3. These included: l It has deep water and any required quayside facilities would be free of constraints such as reliance on tidal access; l Being closer to major sea lanes and ports than other facilities gives Cockenzie a time and fuel advantage; l There are substantial reserves of developable land available on or near the site; l The potential for port-related development at Cockenzie offers the opportunity for creating an energy hub, which in turn could bring wider social, community and economic benefits. These could include employment, local regeneration, improved road, rail and grid infrastructure, and longer distance routes.” The published version of NPF3 states: “Whilst we have safeguarded Cockenzie as a site for future thermal generation, there may be significant opportunities there for renewable energy-related investment. We expect developers, East Lothian Council and the key agencies, including Scottish Enterprise, to work together to ensure that best use is made of the existing land and infrastructure in this area. Given the particular assets of Cockenzie, if there is insufficient land for competing proposals, we wish to see priority given to those which make best use of this location’s assets and which will bring the greatest economic benefits.” So there we have it. Why Cockenzie? Because East Lothian Council and our councillors actively sought this development. They did not ask for the views of the local community because they don’t really care what we think. They are quite prepared to destroy the 3 Harbours community and the environment in the process.

Of course, we need jobs – even though the unemployment rate here is slightly below the national average. But there are many ways to create jobs. Those of us who live in the 3 Harbours have just one environment to live in, one short stretch of (almost) wild coast, one battlefield, one Waggonway, one life. Destroying so much of our environment is far too high a price to pay.

Our councillors pretend that they are victims of the planning system and the Scottish Government but this is false. Our councillors allowed, even encouraged, this and now they must, individually, answer our questions. For example: l From the briefing, did they understand the type and scale of development they were making possible?

l Did they know that much of the land they were offering is designated as DC1 (countryside and undeveloped coast) and C3 in the local plan?

l Did they realise that it included the Battlefield and Waggonway?

l Did they consider asking for the views of their constituents, and why did they not?

l Were they under any pressure to offer this land?

l Who, council officers, councillors, or Government, first suggested the land?

l Why did they keep the proposal secret for a year and claim to know nothing about it when it became public knowledge?

l Did they realise we do care – and do they really expect to be re-elected?

David Chapman Prestonpans