Mr. Peter Mullan:

I will not do so because it is a live case. If there are certain aspects in the public domain I am happy to speak about them but this is a live case so I will not do so. I might ask Ms Kellett to assist me on this. When a case of a large infrastructure project is remitted back from the High Court following a judicial review sometimes the environmental information, such as the EIA assessment, is not up to date and it needs to be redone by the applicants. They have to be given an opportunity to do this so we can consider it afresh. When this information is supplied to us it can be significant. In such a case it must be circulated to the people who objected to the project. Sometimes when this happens, the applicants will ask for a period of up to nine months to allow them to get the material together. We also need to give an opportunity to the observers or appellants to make objections to it. This can add time. These are statutory requirements to have fair procedures for planning applications. This adds to the timeline. It becomes difficult to give timelines for some of the complicated cases.