INSPECTOR Andy Mead is fully entitled to disagree with the views of his predecessor on the earlier inquiry, the council's barrister Matthew Reed is arguing.
Although the first inspector Andrew Phillipson rejected Helioslough's appeal, he said that most of the criticisms were unjustified, and the company's argument would “almost certainly” have succeeded but for shortcomings in its alternative sites assessment.
Mr Reed, therefore, in the first part of a four-part closing statement, has presented a detailed legal argument, supported by precedents, to persuade Mr Mead he can take a different view.
Quoting from the Planning Encyclopaedia, the standard legal guide, he said: “An inspector has to exercise his own judgement and is free to disagree with an earlier decision.
“While a material change of circumstances since an earlier decision is capable of being a good reason for a change of mind, it is not the only reason.
“A good reason may be a new argument or a new piece of evidence.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here