![[2025] EWHC 2127 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Ground 3 – Failure to consider Examining Inspector’s (“EI’s”) report
Ground 3 – Failure to consider Examining Inspector’s (“EI’s”) report.
Submissions on this ground, which is pursued in the alternative to Ground 2, were made by Dr Bowes for the Claimant, Mr Grant for the First Defendant and Mr Whale for the Second Defendant. Mr Whale also made submissions on Ground 2.
This ground is based on the fact that the Inspector’s conclusion as to the deliverability of sites was inconsistent with and/or reached without regard to the findings of the EI on the Local Plan published just months before the Decision.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Factual Background
- The Decision
- Grounds for seeking review / appeal
- Ground 1 - Misinterpreting Green Belt Policy
- Discussion – Ground 1
- Conclusion – Ground 1
- Ground 2 – Deliverability of sites
- Ground 3 – Failure to consider Examining Inspector’s (“EI’s”) report
- Factual background to Ground 3
- Ground 3 – Submissions
- Discussion – Ground 3
- Conclusions