FUMES FROM LOTS ROAD POWER STATION (Hansard, 12 May 1964)

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD HASTINGS)
My Lords, the station is at present being modernised and converted from coal to oil. The sulphur content of the fuel will be limited so that emissions of sulphur dioxide will not after modernisation exceed 25 tons daily—which is several tons less than at present—and will probably be less than that. The waste gases will all be discharged through the two existing 275 ft. chimneys and the four existing 162 ft. chimneys will become redundant.
118 In accordance with the Alkali Act the Ministry of Housing and Local Government's Alkali Inspectorate have satisfied themselves that the best practicable means of restricting noxious emissions will be adopted. The modernisation will eliminate grit emission from the station, and reduce smoke emission, as well as reducing and dispersing the sulphur dioxide, and thus will give additional protection to the public. It is not possible to forecast precisely what concentrations of sulphur dioxide will be found at different heights and in different weather conditions.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that Answer, and ask him for this further information? Is he aware that Dr. Burgess, the Scientific Adviser to the London County Council, has estimated that even if the sulphur dioxide daily discharged were 18.7 tons, as he estimates it will be at first, this could reach undesirably high concentrations at heights over about 120 feet at a distance of a quarter of a mile? Is he further aware that on this basis the station will entirely wreck a most promising housing scheme being prepared by the Chelsea Borough Council, of a type that his Minister would be likely to approve? Finally, may I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government seriously suggest that it is either necessary or desirable to discharge such a volume of poison into the atmosphere of central London, or do they share the expressed fears of the medical officer of health?

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, I am aware of the first part of the supplementary question of the noble Lord. I am not aware that it will wreck the scheme to which he has referred. I would point out, as I said in my original Answer, that there will be an improvement after this modernisation and, therefore, the station cannot affect the planning of the scheme as the atmosphere is worse now than it will be in the future. But if there are any difficulties about this particular scheme with high blocks of flats, I would suggest that the authorities concerned should discuss this problem with my Department.

§ LORD HOBSON
My Lords, will the noble Lord state on what evidence his statement is made, and why these conditions of almost atmospheric purity are 119 to prevail when the same do not occur at Bankside Power Station controlled by the Central Electricity Generating Board, which is also oil-fired?

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, my statement is based on the technical evidence which we have and have been given, and I hope the noble Lord will assume it is correct, as I do. As for the rest of the question, of course we are always operating under the Clean Air Act which is going ahead and making a great improvement in the general atmospheric conditions.

LORD FARINGDON
My Lords, am I to understand that the noble Lord said that although in fact it is probable that there will be slightly less poison discharged, it will be discharged from the lower chimneys and not the higher ones?

§ LORD HASTINGS
The noble Lord heard the complete contrary, I am afraid, of what I said.

LORD FARINGDON
I am very glad to hear it.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, while I feel certain that the Chelsea Borough Council will adopt the suggestion of having discussions with my noble friend's Department, there have, of course, already been discussions with the Scientific Adviser of the London County Council, who takes the view that any building above 120 feet will be extremely dangerous. Is it really desirable that, for as long in the future as one can foresee, a site a quarter of a mile from this station should be one at which a high building would be impossible on the ground of danger?

§ LORD HASTINGS
My Lords, I do not think I can continue the scientific discussion with the noble Lord.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, has the policy been considered of removing these undesirable features of London where the opportunity arises, as in this case? Is it really essential that this power station should be rebuilt at Lots Road, which is a valuable site and could be used for much more effective purposes, when its removal would prevent 25 tons of sulphur dioxide from descending upon the population? Are 120 there not other sites outside London where this could be placed?

§ LORD HASTINGS
I am sure there is an answer to the noble Lord's question, but I should prefer notice of it.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, as the former Member of Parliament of one of the Fulham constituencies for eighteen years, I am aware of the fact that the people of Fulham objected over a long period to the fumes emitted from this station. Could the noble Lord tell me what the medical officer of Fulham has to say on the matter?

§ LORD HASTINGS
I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lady.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, I quite appreciate that the noble Lord has not had notice of my question, but will he draw the attention of the authorities to the possibility of removing this power station altogether from its present site now that the opportunity arises?

§ LORD HASTINGS
Yes, I certainly will, my Lords. But if these discussions take place between the Department and the authorities interested, no doubt all these matters will come to light.