Why SNP voted to remove coal plant plan

Published 14 Mar 2012 09:30 5 Comments

See also:

SNP Councillor Tony Gurney has said that a controversial decision at NAC has shot a warning across the bow of his own government.

Writing in a letter to the Largs & Millport News Councillor Gurney praised those who voted down the development plan which was backed by Labour members.

He said: "North Ayrshire Council have voted to remove all references to power stations on the Hunterston industrial site from its new local plan.

"The vote follows the unanimous rejection of the proposal to build a coal fired power station on the site.

"There was controversy, however, when Labour councillors, including Largs representative Alex Gallagher, voted to keep proposals for the power station in the plan.

"It was imperative that a clear message be sent that this council does not welcome any plan for a new power station at Hunterston. "

Full page and more of letters and views in the Largs & Millport Weekly News of March 14.

Have your say. Post a comment on this article.

derek gordon
Unregistered User
Mar 14, 16:21
Report comment

Removing the condition that any plant had to be 100% carbon capture does not seem a wise course of action. If the SNP Government go ahead with the project they will no longer have to justify breaking a planning condition.

Short sited electioneering from SNP councillors.

Recommend? Yes 7 No 22
cwilso57
Unregistered User
Mar 15, 10:49
Report comment

This is a project by a private company - not the SNP Government.

Voting to remove the project from the local plan will help ensure that this project does not go ahead.

Any Labour Councillor's who voted to keep the proposal in the plans has a lot of explaining to do...

Recommend? Yes 25 No 4
Alex Gallagher
Unregistered User
Mar 19, 09:17
Report comment

Am I safe in assuming that cwilso57 is the C Wilson that works in Kenny Gibson's office?

if you are you know that:

The SNP administration sneaked the power plant on to the planning framework after the final draft was agreed and K Gibson was in favour of it, claiming credit.... at first.

The SNP administration's energy plans for 100% green energy are utterly dependent on the plant being built.

The SNP administration now has complete power to do as it wishes as there is no longer a planning assumption in favour of 100% CCS from the start.

Kenny Gibson's "opposition" to the plant is purely opportunistic. AFAIK, and maybe someone who works in Kenny Gibson's office could tell us if I'm wrong, Kenny Gibson has never voted against the Ayrshire Power plans. I have.

Allan Hill and Tony Gurney may be against it. Who knows? But the efect of their vote is to make it more, not less, likely that the SNP administration in Edinburgh will get its way and the plant will be built, against local wishes.

I said the vote was an "empty gesture" and Tony Gurney says " a message had to be sent".... which translates directly as: "we need an empty gesture"!

If you're not the c wilson that works for Kenny Gibson, please accept my apologies.

Recommend? Yes 4 No 19
Hamish
Unregistered User
Mar 20, 21:14
Report comment

Sorry Alex Gallagher--assuming your the Labour Party candidate for North Ayshire you have lost me with your logic re Your vote "FOR" a coal plant at Hunterston.

As I understand it you and colleagues voted "YES" to include a Coal Plant in the planning framework for NAC at Hunterston. As a result you say this will make it less likely for a coal plant being built?

By the same logic Councillor's Alan Hill and ELizabeth Marshall who voted NO to the coal plant will make it more likely?!!

I cannot work out what is going on behind the scenes but please don't always vote with your colleagues from Irvine---who probably think of the £millions heading to Irvine development coffer's. Largs, Fairlie and Cumbrae deserve better !

Recommend? Yes 17 No 3
Silly Party Politics
Unregistered User
May 9, 19:08
Report comment

I can understand Alex Gallagher's logic here, the question is - is it right? Keep it in the plan but as 100% CCS, which acts as a restriction, or leave it out and have no "control".

What I think is that after a unanimous rejection by the council last year, it's a shame that the councillors are playing silly petty party politics again, at our expense. It would surely be better if they'd got a qualified opinion of the best course of action, and unanimously supported it.

It's clear that all councillors of any party are against the diry smelly unhealthy thing. Please act together in future, whatever your party flavour.

Recommend? Yes 1 No 0

Follow @largsnews

Return to the main index, get more from this section or browse our News archives.