Speeches by Young.

“If we give significant weight to grid connection, is that not going to tip the balance even further in favour of infrastructure build, and raise concerns about overlooking environmental and other considerations?”

“Thank you.”

“Julian, you seemed to suggest earlier that it was not possible for you to communicate with the whole of the public, but, in producing the electricity transmission design principles, how will you ensure that there is close engagement with the communities who will host these transmission projects, so that the rules do no…”

“I was thinking about national food security. That is not just about the individual farmer, their business and what is best for their own business. It is about protecting the best farmland in order to continue food production.”

“How would you respond to an explicit requirement for renewable developers to reinstate any negatively affected farmland to a good agricultural condition?”

“It has also been suggested that both the national policy statements and the agricultural land classification could usefully be updated to protect agricultural production while recognising the patchwork nature of land grading. Do you agree with that?”

“We have heard that national policy statements could provide much clearer guidance on what is considered proportionate—this is in relation to solar farms, by the way—when investigative archaeological work is required. Chandni, would you agree?”

“Lawrence, the draft update says that the principles will not apply to projects that have already been through the strategic front-end design phase. Would a better transitional approach not be to apply them to all projects as much as is possible?”

“Julian, is it not premature for the national policy statements to endorse the principles at this stage, when they have not yet been put to public consultation?”

“So you do not expect there to be any conflict between the two.”

“How will the EDP interact with existing guidance on overhead lines? Does that not need to be explained in the national policy statements as well?”

“Charles, is this something that the national policy statements need to make more explicit?”

“Could there be more emphasis on combining renewables with other uses? Could the national policy statements be more explicit in encouraging that?”

“You are essentially saying an explicit requirement is redundant because in practice, for business reasons or whatever, that is what already happens.”

“Yes. You could have an explicit requirement for renewable developers to reinstate.”

“Eleri and Chandni, did you have anything on that note?”

“I was thinking about national food security. That is not just about the individual farmer, their business and what is best for their own business. It is about protecting the best farmland in order to continue food production.”

“How would you respond to an explicit requirement for renewable developers to reinstate any negatively affected farmland to a good agricultural condition?”

“It has also been suggested that both the national policy statements and the agricultural land classification could usefully be updated to protect agricultural production while recognising the patchwork nature of land grading. Do you agree with that?”

“We have heard that national policy statements could provide much clearer guidance on what is considered proportionate—this is in relation to solar farms, by the way—when investigative archaeological work is required. Chandni, would you agree?”