The Inspector had previously published her timetable for the hearing and made the choice of a round table discussion rather than the cross examination scenario.
The first morning the appellant’s barrister tried to argue that the Landscape visual assessment (LVIA) formed part of the Environmental Statement and tried to accuse the Planning Inspectorate of putting the appeal decision at risk of a legal challenge by not having requested the LVIA under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. He seemed to be under the impression that the requirement to re-consult on the appeal (ie newspaper ads etc) was only triggered by the Planning Inspectorate asking for the information.
The Inspector ruled that the LVIA did not form part of the Environmental Statement. The only thing that suggested it was part of the ES was the Appellants new Landscape consultant’s claim that it superseded the original LVIA.
Stand alone documents provided for a planning inquiry are covered by the Planning Inquiry rules and not the EIA Regulations. Because an inquiry is held in public and is well advertised and because the Inspector must decide that nobody is prejudiced by the receipt of new information then the public consultation requirements are met.
The inspector extended the period for submitting proofs of evidence so that people had a chance to review the new LVIA.
The appellants barrister had the floor many times during the three days claiming the various pieces of evidence submitted by the Council and rule 6 party were incorrect, misleading and out of context. It was like listening to Radio 4’s Just a Minute programme, the continued hesitation, deviation and repetition would have caused the buzzer to go off every 5 seconds.
A statement was made from the appellants claiming they had studied the committee report’s about the planning application for the Pengelly AD plant, there are no committee report’s; this application was decided via delegated powers by Ellis Crompton Brown. Incidentally Ellis Crompton Brown failed to consult the Councils own landscape consultant about this application, therefore, the claim about the AD plant being closer to the world heritage site not being an issue is misleading, it was not assessed prior to permission being granted. Another claim was made that the appellant has 7,000 acres of freehold land, he does not.
The decision will be made on or before the 14th June 2019, we hope the appeal will be dismissed.
We are still trying to gain funds for the work we have done over the last 23 months, the estimated cost for us will be in excess of 18k, please share our funding page.
https://www.gofundme.com/stop-the-free-range-egg-farce
Our work has shown the many flaws in the system, we hope to secure the future for Cornwall, not only for sustainable food production but also to save our wildlife from inappropriate development in the countryside and the constant destruction of our hedgerows.
It’s too late for WALES, not too late for Cornwall.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/chickens-would-outnumber-humans-welsh-15906061
Join our group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1696469517315302/