The noble Lord is right about that, but is he sure that what British Rail has suggested is a bad idea? The effect on local communities of what happens under the Bill will probably be most keenly felt where operations near the shore involve taking material out and carting it away to somewhere else across the country. The effect of decisions about quarrying is very strongly felt in local authorities. The idea of lorries passing endlessly, day and night, full of dusty material worries people very much. Indeed, anyone who has served on a local authority will know that quarrying is a hot issue so far as planning is concerned. I presume that this material will be wet. It may not be dusty but there may be lorries night and day passing some communities. There will also be an enormous number of trains required to take the material wherever it has to be taken. British Rail is right to worry about them. I wonder whether the noble Lord is right not to think about transport as something that should be in the Bill in order to make sure that it is a major consideration when that kind of activity is going to happen at sea.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Carnegy of Lour
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 3 March 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c623 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:10:11 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533621
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533621
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_533621