Planning for a new generation of power stations

Journal of Planning and Environment Law

Volumn , Issue JUNE, 2007, Pages 843-862

  Lindblom, Keith ^a   Honey, Richard ^a  

^a NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Electricity generation; International environmental law; Major infrastructure projects; Nuclear power; Planning inquiries; Planning permission; Power stations; Public participation; Right to fair trial; Strategic environmental assessments

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; ENERGY PLANNING; ENERGY POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; INTERNATIONAL LAW; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; NUCLEAR POWER; POLICY REFORM; STATE ROLE; STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT;

EID: 34250345317     PISSN: 03074870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. Chambers of Robin Purchas Q.C., Francis Taylor Building, Temple ('www.ftb.eu.com').
2. Circular 04/2006, para.3.
3. Barker Review of Land Use Planning, Interim Report, para. 1.11.
4. 'ibid.', para. 1.15.
5. Note also that the Stansted inquiry sat for 258 days in 1981-1983.
6. See the document "New parliamentary procedures for major infrastructure projects", DTLR, December 2001.
7. See generaUy O'Riordan, Kemp & Purdue, 'Sizewell B: An Anatomy of the Inquiry' (Macmillan, 1988).
8. Sizewell B public inquiry report, para. 1.25.
9. 'ibid.', para. 1.28.
10. 'ibid.', para. 1.13.
11. The Hinkley Point Public Inquiries Report, para.3.2.
12. 'ibid.', para.3.6.
13. 'ibid.', para.4.4.
14. 'ibid.', paras 4.19-4.20.
15. 'ibid.', para.4.28.
16. 'ibid.', para.4.39.
17. 'ibid.', para.4.18.
18. 'ibid.', paras 4.31 and 4.40.
19. 'ibid.', para.4.41.
20. 'ibid.', paras 1.12 and 1.27-1.30.
21. 'ibid.', para.3.44.
22. Barker Review of Land Use planning, Interim Report, table 3.
23. 'ibid.', para.1.16.
24. 'ibid.', table 2.
25. "The Energy Challenge", paras 7.55-7.57.
26. Circulars 15/96 and 05/00.
27. Circular 15/96 para.6.
28. Major participants, those who wished to give oral evidence, and those who wished to make written representations.
29. Para.25.
30. Christopher Williams, "Project Analysis", 'Estates Gazette', January 5, 2002, p.70.
31. Although, apparently, not so well at the Dibden Bay inquiry: see Paul Thompson, "Major infrastructure projects - where to now?" [2002] J.P.L. (Occasional Papers No.30) 25 at p.32.
32. DTLR Circular 02/2002: "Planning inquiries into major infrastructure projects: procedures".
33. Para.5.
34. C07/2005, Annex 1, para.27.
35. 'ibid.', para.24.
36. 'ibid.', para.54.
37. 'ibid.', para.23.
38. "The Energy Challenge", para.7.6.
39. 'ibid.', para.7.12.
40. 'ibid.', paras 7.1-7.2.
41. Included as Annex D to "The Energy Challenge".
42. "The Energy Challenge", para.7.29.
43. See the DCLG consultation on a supplement to PPS1 of December 2006.
44. "The Energy Challenge", para.7.36.
45. 'ibid.', para.7.38.
46. 'ibid.', Annex A, p. 164.
47. Parliamentary answer by Stephen Byers on July 20, 2001.
48. Barker Review of Land Use Planning, Interim Report, para.1.14.
49. "The Energy Challenge", Annex A, p.164.
50. 'ibid.', p.165.
51. 'ibid.', p.166.
52. 'ibid.'
53. See the Eddington report, "The Case for Action" (DfT), December 2006);
54. see also [2007] J.P.L. 313-317 at p.314.
55. The Hinkley Point Public Inquiries Report, paras 3.14-3.15.
56. 'ibid.', para.3.19(5).
57. 'ibid.', para.3.19(4).
58. 'ibid.', para. 3.16 and 3.19(6).
59. "The Energy Challenge", Annex A, p.168.
60. See, e.g. 'SSE v Edwards' (1994) 69 P. & C.R. 607.
61. Sizewell B public inquiry report, para.2.182.
62. "The Energy Challenge", Annex A, p.169.
63. 'ibid.', p.162.
64. 'ibid.', p.164.
65. 'ibid.', p.173.
66. 'ibid.', p.169.
67. Quoted in Paul Thompson, cited above fn.30, p.27.
68. See McCracken and Jones, "The Aarhus Convention" [2003] J.P.L. 802.
69. Nuclear power stations and other power stations of more than 50MW fall within para.1 of Annex I to the Convention.
70. UNECE Aarhus Convention Implementation Guide, p.108.
71. 'ibid.'
72. 'ibid.', p.43.
73. 'R. v Secretary of State for Transport Ex p. Medway Council' [2002] EWHC 2516 (Admin).
74. 'R. (on the application of Wandsworth LBC) v Secretary of State for Transport' [2005] EWHC 20 (Admin).
75. Paras 49-52. See also Current Topics at p.807 for an analysis of this discussion.
76. [2001] 2 W.L.R. at 49B-D.
77. 'ibid.', at 1416C.
78. 'ibid.', at 1416E and 1436D-E.
79. 'ibid.', at 1422B.
80. 'ibid.', at 1447G.
81. 'ibid.', at 1435G.
82. 'ibid.', at 1437D-E.
83. 'ibid.', at 1441C.
84. 'ibid.', at 1441C-D.
85. "The Energy Challenge", paras 7.43-7.47.
86. See "Updating the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines Inquiry Procedure Rules in England and Wales: An Energy Review Consultation" (DTI, November 2006).
87. "The Energy Challenge", para.7.47.
88. "Updating the Electricity Generating Stations", cited above fn.82, para.1.5.
89. Barker Review of Land Use Planning, Final Report, para.3.21. The Planning Commission is also supported by the Eddington report, "The Case for Action" (DfT, December 2006);
90. see [2007] J.P.L. 313-317.
91. "Updating the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines Inquiry Procedure Rules in England and Wales: An Energy Review Consultation", cited above fn.82, para.2.23.
92. 'ibid.', para.2.8.
93. 'ibid.', p..2.10.
94. Draft guidance for participants, App.1, para.63.
95. "Updating the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines Inquiry Procedure Rules in England and Wales: An Energy Review Consultation", cited above fn.82, p.67.
96. Draft guidance for participants, App.1, para.20.
97. Thompson, cited above fn.30, p.31.
98. 'ibid.'
99. 'ibid.', p.33.
100. Draft guidance for participants, App. 1, para.3.
101. Draft guidance for participants, para.3.
102. 'ibid.', para.4.
103. See also Purdue, "The Energy Review and Planning" [2006] J.P.L. 1621-1624.
104. Popham and Purdue, "The future of the major inquiry" [2002] J.P.L. 137 at p. 150.