Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Marshall, Tim; Cowell, Richard John Westley (2016)
Publisher: SAGE
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: H1
Governments in many countries have sought to accelerate the time taken to make\ud decisions on major infrastructure projects, citing problems of ‘delay’. Despite this, rarely\ud has the time variable been given careful empirical or conceptual attention in decisionmaking\ud generally, or in infrastructure decision-making specifically. This paper addresses\ud this deficit by analysing decision-making on two categories of major infrastructure in the\ud UK – transport and electricity generation – seeking both to generate better evidence of\ud the changes to decision times in recent decades, and to generate insights from treating\ud time as resource and tracking its (re)allocation. We find that reforms introduced since\ud 2008 have done relatively little to alter overall decision times, but that there are marked\ud and revealing changes to the allocation of time between decision-making stages. While\ud public planning processes have their time frames tightly regulated, aspects led by\ud developers (e.g. pre-application discussion) are not; arranging finance can have a bigger\ud effect on project time frames, and central government retains much flexibility to manage\ud the flow of time. Speed-up reforms are also sectorally uneven in their reach. This\ud indicates how arguments for time discipline falter in the face of infrastructure projects\ud that remain profoundly politicised.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Agamben G, 2005, State of Exception, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago)
    • Allmendinger P, 2011, New Labour and Planning. From New Right to New Left, (Routledge: London).
    • Bachrach P, Baratz M, 1962 “The two faces of power” The American Political Science Review, 56, 947-952.
    • Ball M, Allmendinger P, Hughes C, 2009, “Housing supply and planning delay in the south of England”, Journal of European Real Estate Research, 22(1), 151-169
    • Barker K, 2006, Barker Review of Land Use Planning, Interim Report, July (HM Treasury, London)
    • BBC, 2015, Queen's Speech 2015 - bill by bill, 27th May, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32898443, accessed 13th August 2015.
    • Blowers A, 2009, “Why dump on us?” Town and Country Planning, 78 (1) 33-37.
    • Booth P, 2002, “A desperately slow system? The origins and nature of the current discourse on development control”, Planning Perspectives, 17, 309-323
    • Brand P, Watson P, 2013, “The resurgence of 'government': recent policy initiatives and the new legitimacy crisis”, AESOP / ACSP Congress Dublin, July 15-19th 2013
    • BMVBS (Federal Ministry of Transportation, Building and Urban Development) (2012) „Handbuch für eine gute Bürgerbeteiligung“ zur Planung von Großvorhaben im Verkehrssektor, BerlinCBI, 2000, Manifesto: Towards 2010, (CBI, London)
    • CBI/KPMG, 2012, Better Connected, Better Business, CBI/KPMG Infrastructure Survey 2012, September, (Confederation of British Industry, London).
    • Conseil d'Etat, 2011, Consulter autrement, participer effectivement (Rapport public 2011), Paris: La documentation francaise.
    • Cowell, R. 1995 Environmental Compensation, Sustainability and Planning: The case of the Electricity Supply Industry unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge University
    • Cowell R, Murdoch J, 1999 “Land use and the limits to (regional) governance: some lessons from planning for housing and minerals in England”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research23(4), 654-669
    • Cowell R, Owens S, 2006 “Governing space: planning reform and the politics of sustainability”Environment and Planning 'C', Government and Policy24(3), 403- 421
    • Crompton A, 2015, 'Runaway train: public participation and the case of HS2', Policy and Politics 43(1), 27-44.
    • Davey E, 2013, Planning Act 2008. Application for the Proposed Hinkley Point C (Nuclear Generating Station) Order, 19th March 2013, (Department for Energy and Climate Change, London)
    • DCLG, 2013, Planning Act 2008.Guidance for the Examination of Applications for Development Consent, (Department for Communities and Local Government, London)
    • DCLG, 2014Government Response to the Consultation on the Review of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning Regime, April, (Department for Communities and Local Government, London)
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article