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.”