The Tactics of the Sizewell B Inquiry

O’Riordan, Timothy; Kemp, Ray; Purdue, Michael

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-07904-9_10

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sizewell's duration can be attributed to the fact that this inquiry, perhaps to a unique degree (O'Riordan et al., 1988), was deliberately given a broad remit that extended into issues of energy policy, including the ‘need’ case for new nuclear, costs and safety. Indeed, issues of need and cost occupied most of the first year; the safety case occupied most of the second year, with ‘local planning and environmental considerations’ estimated by O'Riordan et al. (1988) to occupy no more than 15% of the inquiry's proceedings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2 One retort might be that the decision times for Hinkley C reflect a whole series of ‘one off’ activities (the NPS, Electricity Market Reform, the State Aid inquiry) which, once settled, would not recur, thus allowing subsequent projects to be decided more quickly. 3 However, this hypothesis depends on the wider assumption that nuclear power technologies themselves, and the multiple policy landscapes into which nuclear power is embedded, can be kept stable over time (O'Riordan et al., 1988; Sovacool and Cooper, 2013). This did not happen after Sizewell B, and it has yet to be demonstrated for successors to Hinkley C.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is not to say that extending timescales invariably benefits less well-resourced actors. At the protracted inquiry into the Sizewell B nuclear power station, environmental organisations found maintaining a presence immensely challenging (O'Riordan et al., 1988).…”

Section: Planning Decision-making and The Question(s) Of Timementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Infrastructure, planning and the command of time

Marshall

Cowell

2016

Environ Plann C Gov Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AcknowledgementsWe are grateful for the helpful advice of the editor and two anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of this paper. Infrastructure, planning and the command of time AbstractGovernments in many countries have sought to accelerate the time taken to make decisions on major infrastructure projects, citing problems of 'delay'. Despite this, rarely has the time variable been given careful empirical or conceptual attention in decisionmaking generally, or in infrastructure decision-making specifically. This paper addresses this deficit by analysing decision-making on two categories of major infrastructure in the UK -transport and electricity generation -seeking both to generate better evidence of the changes to decision times in recent decades, and to generate insights from treating time as resource and tracking its (re)allocation. We find that reforms introduced since 2008 have done relatively little to alter overall decision times, but that there are marked and revealing changes to the allocation of time between decision-making stages. While public planning processes have their time frames tightly regulated, aspects led by developers (e.g. pre-application discussion) are not; arranging finance can have a bigger effect on project time frames, and central government retains much flexibility to manage the flow of time. Speed-up reforms are also sectorally uneven in their reach. This indicates how arguments for time discipline falter in the face of infrastructure projects that remain profoundly politicised.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Infrastructure, planning and the command of time

Marshall

Cowell

2016

Environ Plann C Gov Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The last nuclear power station constructed in Britain was Sizewell B in Suffolk which was commissioned in 1981. Sizewell B was subject to exhaustive public inquiry (O'Riordan et al , 1988) and construction was delayed until 1987. Sizewell B did not become operational until 1995.…”

Section: Nuclear Power In Britain: the Narrative Of The Renaissancementioning

confidence: 99%

Governance and Nuclear Power: Why Governing is Easier Said than Done

Baker

Stoker

2012

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Governance studies have taken an interpretative turn. There is value in this development which emphasises how, through the construction of narrative and meaning, the processes of governance can be given direction. A study of Britain's privatised energy industry, embedded in a complex set of international networks and market conditions, is used to illustrate the argument. Government cannot command an expansion of nuclear power to meet future energy needs but is seeking to deliver it through a governance narrative that is collaborative and decentred. To judge the likely success of this governance stance requires stepping beyond an interpretative frame and complementing it with insights from a historical institutional perspective. The British government is severely hampered in achieving its objectives by institutional and structural constraints.Britain's previous Labour government declared that it would seek to promote the construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain. Nuclear power was necessary to provide a secure, low-carbon supply of electricity (Department of Trade and Industry [DTI], 2006a; 2007; Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform [BERR], 2008). The coalition government elected in 2010 also supports new nuclear builds and this support has remained in place since the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan (Department of Energy and Climate Change [DECC], 2011a).As Britain has a privatised electricity generation industry, any revival of nuclear power will be delivered through commercial energy companies. These companies are embedded within a complex international network of suppliers and manufacturers. Moreover, nuclear energy suppliers are influenced by market forces in respect of competing sources of energy, the taxation of carbon and the availability of capital finance to fund the building of new nuclear power stations (see Crooks and Pfeifer, 2011;Sokolski, 2011). Therefore, the future of nuclear power in Britain is firmly in the realms of governance as government cannot exercise hierarchical authority but seeks to influence markets, networks of stakeholders and citizens to achieve its ends (see Chhotray and Stoker, 2009;Rhodes, 1997).Studies of governance have taken an interpretative turn which emphasises the role of agency and ideas situated in various discourses to explain how and why government might act (Bang

show abstract

“…It was extensive because many pertinent matters relating to economics and safety had never been thoroughly and competently aired in public before. Finally, the inquiry was exhaustive because the inspector sought to allay public anxieties about matters nuclear, and to ensure that all critical argument was fairly presented and given due weight (O'Riordan et al, 1987).…”

Section: Sizewell B Public Inquirymentioning

confidence: 99%