UNCLASSIFIED
41043
1
2. THE CEGB'S APPLICATION HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF THE MOST WIDE-
RANGING AND LONGEST PUBLIC INQUIRY CARRIED OUT IN THIS COUNTRY.
I PUBLISHED THE REPORT ON 26 JANUARY. IT WAS DEBATED BY THIS
HOUSE ON 23 FEBRUARY. ON THAT OCCASION THE THOROUGHNESS AND
WELL-WRITTEN NATURE OF SIR FRANK LAYFIELD'S WORK WERE GENERALLY
ACKNOWLEDGED BY BOTH SIDES.
3. I CAN ASSURE THE HOUSE THAT BEFORE REACHING MY DECISION I
HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE POINTS RAISED DURING THAT DEBATE
AND THOSE MADE IN THE DEBATE IN ANOTHER PLACE LAST WEEK.
4。 HON MEMBERS HAVE CLEARLY STUDIED THE INSPECTOR'S REPORT WITH
CARE. THEY WILL BE FAMILIAR WITH HIS CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A
NATIONAL INTEREST IN BUILDING A PWR AND THAT THIS CAN BEST BE MET
AT SIZEWELL. HE FOUND THAT A NEW POWER STATION IS REQUIRED TO
MEET ANTICIPATED CAPACITY NEED SEMI-COLON THAT IT SHOULD BE
APPROVED IN THE NEAR FUTURE SEMI-COLON AND THAT THE PROPOSED PWR
IS LIKELY TO BE THE LEAST COST MEANS OF ADDING THAT CAPACITY.
THE INSPECTOR FURTHER CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS GOOD CONFIDENCE
THAT SIZEWELL B WAS SUFFICIENTLY SAFE TO BE TOLERABLE AND THAT
THE NATIONAL NEED FOR THE STATION OVERRIDES THE LOCAL INTEREST IN
FAVOUR OF CONSERVATION.
5. SIR FRANK THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT CONSENT AND DEEMED
PLANNING PERMISSION SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR THE STATION, BUT SHOULD
BE REFUSED FOR THE SECOND ACCESS ROAD. HE ALSO MADE A NUMBER OF
DETAILED SUBSIDIARY RECOMMENDATIONS.
6.
THE INSPECTOR CLOSED THE INQUIRY IN MARCH 1985 AND PROPERLY
REPORTED ONLY ON THE EVIDENCE HE RECEIVED BEFORE THEN. IN
REACHING MY DECISION, HOWEVER, I MUST CONSIDER WHETHER ANYTHING
HAS OCCURRED SINCE THAT DATE WHICH IS MATERIAL TO MY DECISION
AND, IF SO, WHAT WEIGHT I SHOULD GIVE TO ANY SUCH MATTERS.
7.
I HAVE, IN PARTICULAR, CONSIDERED THE RELEVANCE OF CHERNOBYL
2
UNCLASSIFIED