This paper explores the relationship between ‘postpolitics' and processes of rescaling enacted through planning reform. It centres empirically on the policy shift which has occurred in planning since the inception of the Planning Act 2008—the new framework which will oversee the development of new nuclear power and other large-scale infrastructural developments in the UK. This act has radically altered the ways in which publics can engage with government policy. Using interview data gathered from participants in recent nuclear power consultations, as well as participants in the old inquiry-based system of the 1980s, it is argued that processes of rescaling through the Planning Act have diminished the ‘political opportunities' available for certain nongovernmental actors to intervene in the policy process. This has contributed to the postpoliticisation of the planning framework in certain arenas, which raises significant questions concerning public engagement and democratic accountability within the wider context of the modernisation of planning. The potential consequences of these developments are discussed.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG, 2010, “Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28803–818
2.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG, 2012, “Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus?”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series3789–103
3.
AsdalK, 2008, “On politics and the little tools of democracy: a down to earth approach”Distinktion1611–26
4.
AubreyC, 1991Meltdown: The Collapse of the Nuclear Dream (Collins and Brown, London)
5.
BarnettCBridgeG, 2013, “Geographies of radical democracy: agnostic pragmatism and the formation of affected interests”Annals of the Association of American Geographers1031022–1040
6.
BarnettJBurninghamKWalkerGCassN, 2012, “Imagined publics and engagement around renewable energy technologies in the UK”Public Understanding of Science2136–50
BraunBWhatmoreS J, 2010, “The stuff of politics: an introduction”, in Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy, and Public Life Eds BraunBWhatmoreS J (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN) pp ix–xI
14.
BraunKShultzS, 2010, “‘…A certain amount of engineering involved …’: constructing the public in participatory governance arrangements”Public Understanding of Science19403–419
15.
BrennerN, 2009, “Restructuring, rescaling, and the urban question”Critical Planning1660–79
16.
BriassoulisH, 1999, “Who plans whose sustainability? Alternative roles for planners”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management42889–902
17.
CallonMLascoumesPBartheY, 2011Acting in an Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
18.
CassNWalkerGDevine-WrightP, 2010, “‘Good neighbours’, public relations, and bribes: the politics of perceptions of community benefit provision in renewable energy development in the UK”Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning A12255–275
19.
CatneyPDoyleT, 2011, “The welfare of now and the green (post) politics of the future”Critical Social Policy31174–193
ChilversJBurgessJ, 2008, “Power relations: the politics of risk and procedure in nuclear waste governance”Environment and Planning A401881–1900
22.
CochraneA, 2010, “Exploring the regional politics of ‘sustainability’: making up sustainable communities in the South-East of England”Environmental Policy and Governance20370–381
CottonM, 2011, “Public participation in UK infrastructure planning: democracy, technology, and environmental justice”, in Engaging with Environmental Justice: Governance, Education, and Citizenship Eds CottonMMottaB (Interdisciplinary Press, Witney, Oxon) pp 201–211
25.
CottonMDevine-WrightP, 2012, “Making electricity networks ‘visible’: industry actor representations of publics and public engagement in infrastructure planning”Public Understanding of Science2117–35
26.
CowellROwensS, 2006, “Governing space: planning reform and the politics of sustainability”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy24403–421
27.
CowellROwensS, 2010, “Revisiting … Governing space: planning reform and the politics of sustainability”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy28952–957
28.
DeanJ, 2009Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies (Duke University Press, Durham, NC)
DelgadoA, 2011, “Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology”Public Understanding of Science20826–845
32.
DelgadoAKjølbergK LWicksonF, 2011, “Public engagement coming of age: from theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology”Public Understanding of Science20826–845
33.
Devine-WrightP, 2011, “Public engagement with large scale renewable energy technologies: breaking the cycle of NIMBYism”Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change219–26
FlyvbjergBBruzelieusNRothengatterW, 2003Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
40.
GiddensA, 2000The Third Way and its Critics (Polity Press, Cambridge)
41.
GoodinR, 2008Innovating Democracy (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
42.
GoodwinMJonesMJonesR, 2012Rescaling the State: Devolution and the Geographies of Economic Governance (Manchester University Press, Manchester)
43.
Grove-WhiteR, 1991, “Land use law and the environment”, in Law, Policy, and the Environment Eds ChurchillRGibsonJWarrenL M (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 32–47
44.
GunderM, 2006, “Sustainability”Journal of Planning Education and Research26208–221
45.
GunderMHillierJ, 2009Planning in Ten Words or Less: A Lacanian Entanglement with Spatial Planning (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants)
46.
HerringH, 2010, “Opposition to nuclear power: a concise history”, in Nuclear or Not: Does Nuclear Power Have a Place in a Sustainable Energy Future? Ed. ElliotD (Macmillan, London) pp 34–50
Hilding-RydevikTHåkanssonMIsakssonK, 2011, “The Swedish discourse on sustainable regional development: consolidating the post-political condition”International Planning Studies16169–187
JessopB, 2008State Power (Polity Press, Cambridge)
55.
JohnstoneP, 2010, “The nuclear renaissance in the UK: democratic deficiencies within the ‘consensus’ on sustainability”Human Geography391–104
56.
JordanA, 2008, “The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2617–33
57.
KempRO'RiordanTPurdueM, 1984, “Investigation as legitimacy: the maturing of the big public inquiry”Geoforum15477–488
58.
KitscheltH P, 1986, “Political opportunity structures and political protest: anti-nuclear movements in four democracies”British Journal of Political Science1657–85
59.
KythreotisA, 2011, “Progress in global climate change politics? Reasserting national state territoriality in a ‘post-political’ world”Progress in Human Geography361–18
60.
LatourB, 2005, “From realpolitik to dingpolitik or how to make things public”, in Making Things Public: Atmospheres of Democracy Eds LatourBWeibelP (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) pp 14–43
MacKerronG, 2011, “Foreword”, in Rationality and Ritual: Participation and Exclusion in Nuclear Decision Making Ed. WynneB (Earthscan, London) pp ix–xi
63.
MahonyN, 2010, “Mediating the publics of public participation experiments”, in Rethinking the Public: Innovations in Research, Theory, and Politics Eds MahonyNNewmanJBarnettC (The Policy Press, Bristol) pp 15–28
64.
MansfieldB, 2009, “Sustainability”, in Companion to Environmental Geography Eds CastreeNDemerittDLivermanD (Blackwell, Oxford) pp 37–49
65.
MarresN, 2007, “The issues deserve more credit: pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy”Social Studies of Science37759–780
66.
MarresN, 2012, “Front staging non-humans: publicity as a constraint on the political activity of things”, in Political Matter: Technoscience, Democracy, and Public Life Eds BraunBWhatmoreS J (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN) pp 77–210
67.
MasseyA, 1988Technocrats and Nuclear Politics (Gower, Aldershot, Hants)
MetzgerJ, 2011, “Neither revolution, nor resignation: (re)democratizing contemporary planning praxis: a commentary on Allmendinger and Haughton's “Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces'’”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29191–196
70.
MeyerD S, 2004, “Protest and political opportunities”Annual Review of Sociology30125–145
71.
MichaelM, 2009, “Publics performing publics: of PiGs, PiPs, and politics”Public Understanding of Science18617–631
72.
MooreA, 2008, “Rethinking scale as a geographical category: from analysis to practice”Progress in Human Geography32203–225
O'NeillSNicholson-ColeS, 2009, “‘Fear won't do it’: promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations”Science Communication30355–379
75.
O'RiordanTKempRPurdueM, 1988Sizewell B: An Anatomy of an Inquiry (Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, Hants)
76.
OwensSCowellR, 2002Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process (Routledge, London)
77.
PembertonSGoodwinM, 2010, “Rethinking the changing structures of rural local government: state power, rural politics and local political strategies?”Journal of Rural Studies26272–283
78.
PidgeonN FLorenzoniIPoortingaW, 2008, “Climate change or nuclear power: ‘No thanks!’ A quantitative study of public perceptions and risk framing in Britain”Global Environmental Change1869–85
79.
Planning2009, “Nuclear Deal Sparks public input worries”Planning18271–2
80.
RancièreJ, 2010Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics (Continuum, London)
81.
RichardsonT, 2002, “Freedom and control in planning: using discourse in the pursuit of reflexive practice”Planning Theory and Practice3353–361
RoughE, 2011, “Policy learning through public inquiries? The case of UK nuclear energy policy 1955–61”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2924–45
84.
RoweGFrewerL J, 2004, “Evaluating public-participation exercises: a research agenda” Science, Technology, and Human Values29512–556
SmithA H, 2005, “Constructions of sustainability and spatial planning: the case of Dalton Flatts, County Durham, planning inquiry”The Town Planning Review76341–362
87.
SovacoolB, 2012The International Politics of Nuclear Power (Routledge, London)
88.
SovacoolBValentineS V, 2012The National Politics of Nuclear Power (Routledge, London)
89.
StaheiliL, 2010, “Political geography: democracy and the disorderly public”Progress in Human Geography34633–648
90.
SwyngedouwE, 2000, “Authoritarian governance, power, and the politics of rescaling”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space1863–76
91.
SwyngedouwE, 2005, “Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state”Urban Studies421991–2006
92.
SwyngedouwE, 2007, “Impossible Sustainability and the post-political situation”, in The Sustainable Development Paradox: Urban Political Economy in the US and Europe Eds KruegerRGibbsD (Guilford Press, New York) pp 13–40
93.
SwyngedouwE, 2010, “Apocalypse forever?”Theory, Culture and Society27213–232
94.
SwyngedouwE, 2011, “Interrogating post-democratization: reclaiming egalitarian political spaces”Political Geography30370–380
95.
VenablesDPidgeonNSimmonsPHenwoodKParkhillK, 2009, “Living with nuclear power: a Q-method study of local community perceptions”Risk Analysis291089–1104
WalkerGCassNBurninghamKBarnettJ, 2010, “Renewable energy and sociotechnical change: imagined subjectivities of the public and their implications”Environment and Planning A42931–947
98.
WarnerM, 2005Publics and Counterpublics (Zone Books, New York)
99.
WelshI, 2000Mobilising Modernity: The Nuclear Moment (Routledge, London)
100.
WhatmoreS J, 2009, “Mapping knowledge controversies: science, democracy and the redistribution of expertise”Progress in Human Geography33587–598
