Planning Bill
1:15 pm
Phi l Jones: This is on existing arrangements, by the way. This is before you start pursing the kind of climate change objectives that have been kicked around in the past 12 months. “When we say 20 per cent. did we mean electrical energy?” “No, we meant all energy.” “Oh, better stick to it, then.” That kind of thing. That is a massive change that is being talked about now. Against that backdrop, I would not like to hazard a guess or stake my professional reputation, at this point, on how many nationally significant developments there would be. I can see the concern that they would not want people like us trying to flash everything through as being nationally significant, and therefore, perhaps, you get back into the kind of guidance that is given, whether in the national policy statements or otherwise, as to what is nationally significant and what is not. Again, I would sound a real note of caution: “joined-up” is a phrase that is used often about government. Our assets are physically joined up. That is the whole point of them. In this whole scheme of things, essential components of a piece of infrastructure development are joined up. I do not know of any developments that get held up because of planning where all of it is a problem. It is nearly always one piece of the development that is a problem. I can think of one scheme right now that has been delayed for well north of 15 years and only 25 per cent. of the line that is required is under contest. The local authorities and local communities are happy with the other three quarters. I am not saying that that is wrong—the individual who is objecting has a right to do so—but years and years can drag by, not because the whole thing is being questioned but one piece of it. We would just like the whole thing settled; we think that the right thing is to get on and build the infrastructure. The individual is never going to be happy with it.