Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 163: 163: Clause 34, page 21, line 32, leave out paragraph (d) The noble Lord said: There seems to be no theme uniting this group of amendments as far as I can see. It seems to be a bureaucratic grouping, which I do not object to at all, but I shall speak only to my amendment, which deletes Clause 34(1)(d). This subsection concerns me because it appears to give the opportunity to the Secretary of State to lump together several projects. When none of them singly would be able to be categorised as a project of national significance, he can apparently lump them together and so decide that they become a project of national significance. For example, it would appear that the Secretary of State might be able to decide that a group of wind farms which were individually beneath the threshold could be considered together and would become a nationally significant project. They would have nothing in common with each other at all; there is certainly nothing here to require anything that links the projects. They would be schemes by different developers and they could be started at different times and subject to different local authorities, with absolutely nothing in common to justify them being put together except that the Secretary of State has, apparently, the unfettered discretion to decide that they should be considered together. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could explain whether that is the intention of the subsection and, if it is not, whether it could be the effect of that subsection. I beg to move.