Planned by the North Eastern Electric Supply Company (NESCo) in 1944, it was never realised as the scheme faced stiff opposition from those who claimed it would obstruct views of the historic Durham Cathedral from the East Coast Main Line.

A number of people supported the scheme as it would help meet the increasing demand for electricity and provide much needed jobs in the post-depression, post-war economy of Britain.

[1] The coal burnt would have had an estimated ash content of between 14% and 22%, and so at a cost of £160,000, the company were to install electrostatic precipitators, to remove 97% of the dust from the smoke and waste gasses from combustion, before leaving the two 350 feet (110 m) high chimneys.

Fly ash from the precipitators would also have built up, and NESCo claimed they would have spread this on land to the west of the station, and mixed it with soil to produce a 14 feet (4.3 m) high spoil tip.

[3] The plans were strongly opposed by Thomas Wilfred Sharp, an urban planner from Durham, who thought that the station would intrude on the city's skyline.

The critics claimed that Durham's functioning as a cultural, educational, administrative and tourist center, would be ultimately destroyed by heavy industrialisation.

At the outbreak of war, the north of the country had still not fully recovered from the Great Depression of the 1930s, and Foster believed the employment the station's construction and maintenance provided would help prevent a return to those conditions.

He also pointed out that the critics made their comments without any suggestion of an alternative, and that their campaign against the scheme had attracted publicity through a BBC broadcast.

However, he warned that the interest of the county's economy should be put in front of the concerns of "those ill-informed critics, who view Durham from the railway ... passing from one more fortunate district to another.

[7] British architect Frederick Gibberd published a diagrammatic comparison of Durham Cathedral alongside a power station typical of the design of the time, like the one planned at Kepier.

A Northern Echo reader summarised these ideas in 1944: "As the traveller by train approaches Kepier and Durham from the North there would meet his eye in the foreground this vast power station.

The NESCo representatives argued that although the company already supplied around 85% of the North East region, a great deal more generating capacity would need to be built to meet the demand for years to come, and that the mid-Durham area was the best place to erect a new station.

John Hacking, chief engineer of the Central Electricity Board, backed NESCo because if the scheme were declined, and consent and new arrangements had to be made, they would have no new plant in operation until after 1948.

Pepler supported the view that Durham was more suited as an administrative, shopping, and tourist centre, than it was for large-scale industrial development.

[3] If Hurcomb persisted in adhering to his terms of reference and approved the power station, but Durham Rural District Council then withheld planning consent on the grounds of the objections, NESCo would be entitled to compensation for their losses due to the delay and building on a new site.

The District Council would be liable for this but it was out of the question that they would be able to afford the large amount involved and the Government wished to avoid stepping in to pay themselves.

[3] Eventually, Hurcomb put forward at a ministerial meeting a solution whereby the members of the inquiry would inform NESCo that on purely technical grounds they would have approved the scheme, but due to the opposition of Morrison, they had decided not to proceed to a decision.

The Government thought the site was open to well founded objections, and even if the scheme had proceeded past the inquiry stage, they would have refused consent anyway.

[10] On 9 October 1945, Minister of Town and Country Planning Lewis Silkin made clear in the House of Commons that NESCo had begun extending their existing power stations by installing additional generating plant at sites other than Kepier, sufficing the demand for electricity, and meaning no station was needed at Kepier.