Folio No CO 4054/2002

Neutral Citation Number: [2003] EWHC 2093 (Admin) 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE      
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
 
Court No 28

Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London WC2 A2U 

6th February 2003

Before:

MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN

____________________________________________________

BETWEEN:
STEETLEY WOBURN BENTONITE LIMITED 
Claimant 
‑v‑

(1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
(2) BEDFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
Defendants
____________________________________________________

MR ROY MARTIN QC and MR MATTHEW REED appeared on behalf of the Claimant. 

MR TIMOTHY MOULD (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of the Defendants.  

JUDGMENT
(As Approved by the Court)
1.	MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: This is an application under Section 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) to quash a decision by the Secretary of State contained in a decision letter dated 24th July 2002 to dismiss the claimant's appeal against the second defendant's refusal of planning permission for the extraction of fuller's earth, with progressive restoration to agriculture, woodland and heathland, together with retention of the existing processing plant at Wavendon Heath South, Woburn, Bedfordshire.
2.	The claimant is also challenging the Secretary of State's decision not to confirm two related orders for the stopping‑up of highways. It is common ground that the decision in relation to these highways orders must follow that in respect of the planning appeal.
3.	The Secretary of State recovered the appeal for his own decision because it related to major proposals involving the mining and working of minerals. He appointed an Inspector, Leonora Rozee, and an Assistant Inspector, Stuart Reid, to hold an Inquiry and report to him.
4.	At the Inquiry, it was agreed that there were four issues to be addressed: 
5.	(1) the impact of the proposal on the local landscape and the Greensand Ridge Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV); 
6.	(2) the impact on trees and woodlands and the ecology of the County Wildlife Sites (CWS); 
7.	(3) the impact on the setting of Woburn Conservation Area and listed buildings in the vicinity; 
8.	(4) the need for the development. 
9.	The Inspector's overall conclusions are set out in paragraph 7.103 of her 108‑page report.
“(a) the development would have an unacceptable overall impact on the local landscape and the Greensand Ridge AGLV both in the short‑term, during the excavation of fuller's earth, and in the long‑term, following the restoration of the site. As a result, the development would conflict with policy 7 of the [Bedfordshire Structure Plan] and policy MW16 and, to a lesser degree, policy MW18 of the [Minerals and Waste Local Plan]; 
“(b) the proposals conflict with the aim of policy 4(ii) to protect the CWS and with policy MW17, because the impact of the excavation proposals on the wildlife interest on the site would be significant.
“(c) no harm has been found to the settings of the listed buildings, or to the character or appearance of the Woburn Conservation Area, and, on this ground, there is no reason to withhold the grant of planning permission.
“(d) the evidence does not show that there is a clear and genuine need for the extraction to take place because of any 'unique' contribution [Woburn Bentonite] makes to the paper‑making industry either in the UK or worldwide. There is adequate evidence to conclude that if WB were to be no longer available, alternatives to meet the need for highly efficient retention and drainage aids exist, whether these be in the form of alternative bentonite resources or in the form of synthetic products. As such, there is no need for the development to set against the harm found on issues i and ii above 
“(e) there are no other material considerations which either support or undermine the conclusions I have reached on the main issues.”
10.	Paragraph 6 of the decision letter sets out the Secretary of State's conclusions in a nutshell:
“The Secretary of State considers that the Inspector has identified and considered the main issues of relevance to the determination of this appeal. He accepts her overall conclusions that the proposed development will not cause harm to the setting of listed buildings or to the character and appearance of the Woburn Conservation Area, but that it will cause harm to both the local landscape and the Greensand Ridge Area of Great Landscape Value: to trees and woodlands and to the ecology of the County Wildlife Sites. He also agrees that the case of need put forward by the appellants is not sufficient to outweigh the planning objections to the proposal and that the appeal should be dismissed.”
11.	Paragraphs 7‑10 of the decision letter amplify the Secretary of State's conclusions in respect of the first three issues.
12.	Paragraph 11 amplifies the conclusions in relation to need as follows:
“On need, the Secretary of State notes that the Inspector did not have the benefit of full disclosure of information from the appellant because of their desire to protect sensitive commercial information. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State accepts the Inspector's conclusion, at paragraph 7.51 of [the Inspector's Report], that sufficient evidence was presented to cast doubt on the appellants' assertion of the uniqueness of the Woburn Bentonite. The Secretary of State has also noted the limited geological and geographical availability of fuller's earth in England. However, this is more than offset by the alternative sources of supply available to the paper‑making industry.”
13.	That is crucial in this instance, given the locational sensitivity of the appeal site: 
“The Secretary of State accepts the Inspector's view that 'there is adequate evidence to conclude that if Woburn Bentonite were to be no longer available, alternatives to meet the need for highly efficient retention and drainage aids exist, whether these be in the form of alternative bentonite resources or in the form of synthetic products.' (Inspector's Report 7.75)”
14.	In paragraph 12, the Secretary of State said that for the reasons given above he accepted the Inspector's recommendation and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
15.	On behalf of the claimant, Mr Martin did not challenge the Secretary of State's conclusions on the first two issues, the third being in the claimant's favour. 
16.	The claimant's challenge is confined to certain aspects of the manner in which the Inspector and the Secretary of State (in adopting the Inspector's conclusions) dealt with the issue of need.
17.	Before turning to the submissions made on behalf of the claimant, it is important to see the way in which the claimant's case was put to the Inspector at the Inquiry.
18.	In writing her report, the Inspector was not writing an academic treatise on fuller's earth, she was dealing with the arguments and evidence advanced before her by the parties: the claimant, the second defendant and third party objectors.
19.	The claimant argued that such impact as there might be on landscape, wildlife and the conservation area was:
20.	“... substantially outweighed because of the significant need for the mineral which has been demonstrated in evidence.” (3.1) 
21.	(All further references in parenthesis are to paragraph numbers in the Inspector's Report) 
22.	The claimant contended:
“(ii) the requirement to establish a need in the national interest would be justified only where extraction was to be carried out in a location of national significance, protected by designations which justified a test of overriding need in accordance with national planning and development plan policy. The appeal site is not subject to any such designation. 
“(iii) ... if need is a relevant issue in their consideration of the issue of need, [the County Council] and third party objectors have misunderstood the significance of the deposit at Wavendon Heath. Their approach has relied upon assumptions that one deposit of fuller's earth is generally equivalent to, and transferable with, another deposit situated elsewhere in Britain or abroad.”
23.	The position of the claimant is that this is erroneous, and that the deposit in question is unique, possessing specific chemical and physical characteristics which render it the only known deposit which can achieve the benefits available, in particular in the paper‑making industry:
24.	“... as a result of the significance of the unique characteristics of WB [Woburn Bentonite], the extraction of the deposits would be in the national interest.” (3.2) 
25.	The Inspector summarised the claimant's case on need between paragraphs 3.69 and 3.118. Under the nature of the need, the claimant said:
“The starting point for the consideration of need is to recognise that it may be established upon the following bases ... 
“(ii) national economic benefits ... 
26.	“(iv) local economic benefits.” (3.71)
27.	“Need may exist potentially as: the need of an applicant; local need; county need; national need; and strategic national need, as reflected in policy MW12 of the [Minerals and Waste Local Plan].” (3.71) 
“In this case, the interests of the acknowledged importance are interests of local significance only. Thus, for the purposes of the assessment of need, any conflict with development plan policy may be outweighed by: 
“(i) need or justification for extraction based on locally significant reasons; or.
“(ii) need or justification for extraction based on nationally significant reasons; or.
28.	“(iii) a combination of the two.” (3.72) 
29.	“If it is in the national interest that extraction takes place then an impact of only local significance should not prevent that extraction. This is the logical balance which is required in accordance with the development plan in this case.” (3.73) 
30.	The characteristics of Woburn Bentonite were said by the claimants to be unique, and it was said that there were no alternative bentonites available to the paper‑making industry which matched its performance.
31.	Mr Watkins, the managing director of the claimant, gave evidence. The Inspector recorded as part of the claimant's submissions, in paragraph 3.81:
“Although Mr Watkins relied upon commercial confidentiality not to disclose sensitive information, it was not suggested by [the County Council] that Mr Watkins had given deliberately inaccurate evidence. In the event of a refusal of the application, [the claimant] does not have a 'fallback' position, because no substitute for [Woburn Bentonite] has been found.”
32.	“All of the above evidence forms the basis of the case on need for [the claimant]. At the very least, it is submitted that it establishes a prima facie justification for the extraction of WB in the national interest.” (3.82) 
33.	Having summarised the claimant's response to the evidence of the second defendant and third party objectors, the Inspector recorded the claimant's contention that it had:
34.	“... demonstrated that WB is regarded by those concerned with paper‑making chemicals as having unique properties and that, despite research, it continues to be regarded as being the only suitable material for the most difficult paper‑making conditions which are serviced by the CIBA products which use WB.” (3.105) 
35.	The second defendant challenged the claimant's case on need. Under the heading, “Is Woburn Bentonite unique (in performance) among bentonites?”, the Inspector summarised the second defendant's criticisms of the claimant's evidence.
36.	One of the second defendant's witnesses was Dr Thompson, who was a chartered geologist, a fellow of The Geological Society, and Head of Earth Sciences with the Symonds Group Limited.
37.	As part of her summary of the second defendant's case, the Inspector noted this submission in paragraph 3.227:
“It is notable that it was put to Dr Thompson that he did not have evidence to dispute the unique performance of WB. Dr Thompson's answer was that he did have such evidence, but that he was unable to produce it to the Inquiry (Inspector's Note: this relates to confidential report 98/329 between CIBA and Laporte concerning the Baulking Deposits which Dr Thompson was advised was not admissible to the Inquiry).” 
38.	The summary of the Council's case continued in paragraph 3.228:
“The Secretary of State may wonder about this lack of information. If it is really the case that WB has any qualities that distinguish it from other bentonites, why is there such a paucity of information? It is not acceptable, in order to justify such a detrimental extraction as that which is proposed in this case, simply to be asked to take CIBA's and Steetley's claims as to the uniqueness of WB on trust, particularly when the most favourable results for other bentonites have not been shown, and particularly where the Council has been seeking evidence to support the claims made for WB for a substantial period. Even despite Dr Thompson's plea for evidence ... the details were not forthcoming.”
39.	The facsimile message from Laporte comes from the Managing Director of Rockwood Additives Limited, and says this:
“Subject: Report 98/329, confidential document between CIBA Specialities and Laporte (Absorbents) Baulking Limited. 
“I am confirming that, due to its confidential nature, this report is not admissible in the current Steetley/Woburn planning appeal case.”
40.	In her conclusions on need, the Inspector said that since she had concluded that there would be adverse impacts on ecology and on the landscape, it was:
“... necessary to establish whether there is a need for the development sufficient to outweigh those impacts.”
41.	Mr Martin accepts that such a balancing exercise had to be carried out. However, he criticises the manner in which the Inspector carried out that exercise.
42.	In paragraph 7.49, under the heading “Level of Need Required”, the Inspector said this:
“In relation to the level of need required, it is argued strongly for the appellants that, as the designations which are affected by this development, ie the AGLV and CWS, are local designations, it is only necessary to establish a local need to weigh in the balance against any harm. Whilst that may be so, the case put for the appellants is in fact one of national need, the need which the appellants claim is based on the value of Woburn Bentonite to the paper‑making industry. Accordingly, it is difficult to judge what the local need might be other than in the context of any impact of the proposal on the local economy of the area. This is a matter I deal with under 'Other Relevant Considerations' below.”
43.	The Inspector then considered the importance of Woburn Bentonite to the paper‑making industry, and said this in paragraph 7.50:
“The main market for WB is to CIBA Speciality Chemicals, who use the mineral in their patented Organopol and Hydrocol systems, which are used in the paper‑making industry to aid drainage and fibre and filler retention. It is argued for [the claimant] and CIBA that WB is unique amongst bentonites for its availability to operate in harsh wet‑end conditions, allowing paper mills to operate at high speeds. In presenting evidence on this topic, the appellants relied on commercial confidentiality to protect what they described as sensitive information which made it difficult to test the robustness of some of their claims. Nonetheless, it is argued for [the claimant] that the uniqueness has been demonstrated by ...”
44.	And then the Inspector set out the pieces of evidence which the claimant was submitting demonstrated the uniqueness of Woburn Bentonite.
45.	Having set out the evidence relied upon by the claimants in some considerable detail, together with her reservations about that evidence (see paragraphs 7.51‑7.58), the Inspector said this in the first sentence of paragraph 7.59:
“I have concluded that the evidence produced by the appellants which seeks to demonstrate that WB is unique amongst bentonites is not persuasive.”
46.	Paragraph 7.59 appears immediately under the subheading, “Whether there are any alternatives to the use of Woburn Bentonite in the paper‑making industry”. The paragraph continues:
“Dr Thompson for [the County Council] gave oral evidence to the effect that he had in his private possession evidence to contest the claim that WB was unique. This related to a confidential report which he had seen which concerned the Baulking Deposits in Oxfordshire. Dr Thompson was advised via a copy of a fax between Rockwood (owners of the Moor Mill site [the Moor Mill site is sometimes referred to as the Baulking Deposits and vice versa]) and Mr Stockwell at CIBA that this report was not admissible to the Inquiry. Consequently, it was not possible for me to assess the veracity of Dr Thompson's claim.”
47.	The Inspector in paragraphs 7.60 and 7.61 considered the Moor Mill or Baulking Deposit and other reserves of bentonite at another site in Surrey.
48.	In paragraph 7.62 she said:
“I find that, on the evidence before the Inquiry, it is not possible for me to reach firm conclusions on the potential availability of an alternative source of bentonite in the United Kingdom. However, the doubt raised by Dr Thompson as to whether the Baulking Deposit is of equivalent quality to WB, which I was unable to test, raises doubt about the claim that WB has unique qualities in terms of its use in paper‑making.” 
49.	She then considered, in paragraphs 7.63 and following, a number of retention and drainage aid systems which did not use bentonite. 
50.	Following that consideration, she referred to a number of learned papers that had been produced by Dr Nazir, another of the witnesses called by the second defendant. He contended that these papers showed that alternatives to Woburn Bentonite were available. However, the Inspector was not persuaded, and said:
“... it is hard for me to conclude that this paper, or any of the other papers, provides conclusive evidence that there are non‑bentonite products which provide a similar level of performance as WB. Nevertheless, given the lack of clarity of some of the appellant's evidence, notably that relating to the supposed uniqueness of WB, and the highly competitive market which appears to operate in retention and drainage aids for the paper‑making industry, I am unable to conclude on the evidence that there are no alternatives to WB should that material no longer be available to CIBA.”
51.	The Inspector then dealt with the arguments about sterilisation. As part of its case under this heading, the claimant argued that it would be illogical to use inferior substitutes with poorer environmental characteristics.
52.	The Inspector responded to this argument in paragraph 7.71:
“... I have concluded that the argument that WB is unique has not been demonstrated. Thus, it does not follow that the paper‑making industry would be faced with no alternative plan than to use inferior products. There is no clear evidence to show that the benefits identified of WB ‑‑ namely, that it enables greater use of recycled paper and board and contributes to the closing‑up of the manufacturing process, thus saving water and reducing effluent discharge ‑‑ cannot be achieved to a similar degree of efficiency with other bentonite or synthetic products.”
53.	The Inspector dealt with the impact on the appellant company and CIBA of the loss of Woburn Bentonite, and concluded that this:
54.	“... should carry little weight in assessing the need for the development.” (7.74) 
55.	Her overall conclusion on need is to be found in 7.75 as follows:
“Overall, I conclude that it is in the commercial interest of both the appellant company and CIBA for the extraction of fuller's earth to be permitted from the appeal site. However, I am not persuaded on the evidence, part of which was not capable of being properly tested due to the appellants' reliance on commercial confidentiality and part of which was undermined by its selective nature, that there is a clear and genuine need for the extraction to take place because of any 'unique' contribution WB makes to the paper‑making industry either in the UK or worldwide. 
“In my view, there is adequate evidence to conclude that if WB were to be no longer available, alternatives to meet the need for highly efficient retention and drainage aids exist, whether these be in the form of alternative bentonite resources or in the form of synthetic products. As such, there is no need for the development to set against the harm found on issues i and ii above.”
56.	Under the heading “Other Material Considerations”, the Inspector dealt with the parties' contentions relating to impact on the national and local economy. She considered that the effect on the former was likely to be insignificant (7.77), and, so far as local employment was concerned, she said in 7.81:
“... whilst any jobs are valuable, the scale of employment provided by [the claimant] is not likely to be of such significance to the local economy that its loss should weigh heavily in the balance in favour of the development.”
57.	Her overall conclusions on need were incorporated into her overall conclusions on the appeal as set out in paragraph 7.103, which I have set out above.
58.	It will be clear from this very brief summary of the relevant sections of the Inspector's Report that she dealt with the issue of need in very considerable detail and with the greatest possible care. 
59.	The overall conclusion expressed in paragraph 7.75 was based upon a painstaking analysis of the cases advanced at the Inquiry. It is against this background that Mr Martin's two criticisms of particular aspects of the Inspector's reasoning on need (which were adopted in the Secretary of State's decision letter) fall to be considered.
60.	The first criticism focuses upon her treatment of Dr Thompson's evidence.
61.	It is said that in placing weight on Dr Thompson's evidence the Inspector and the Secretary of State reached conclusions adverse to the claimant without there being any evidence in support of them, made an error of fact, took into consideration an irrelevant matter, and reached a conclusion, or conclusions, that were irrational.
62.	These criticisms, in my judgment, stem from the claimant's failure to read the decision letter as a whole and in a common sense as opposed to a legalistic way.
63.	I begin with the alleged error of fact. It is submitted that when the Inspector said, in paragraph 7.75:
“... I am not persuaded on the evidence, part of which was not capable of being properly tested due to the appellant's reliance on commercial confidentiality and part of which was undermined by its selective nature, that there is a clear and genuine need for the extraction to take place because of any 'unique' contribution WB makes to the paper‑making industry either in the UK or worldwide.”
64.	She was there referring to Dr Thompson's evidence. 
65.	If she was, then she was undoubtedly in error, because it was not the claimant which claimed commercial confidentiality for the report referred to by Dr Thompson but a third party, Rockwood.
66.	One can reach the conclusion that in that passage the Inspector was referring to Dr Thompson's evidence only by a most strained and unrealistic interpretation of paragraph 7.75.
67.	It will be recalled that in paragraph 7.50, the Inspector had referred to the fact that the claimant had:
“... relied on commercial confidentiality to protect what they described as sensitive information, which made it difficult to test the robustness of some of their claims.”
68.	Having made that overarching point about the claimant's evidence, the Inspector then explained her reservations about the evidence that the claimant had felt able to produce. Nowhere in her report does the Inspector suggest that the claimant was responsible for the refusal to disclose the report referred to by Dr Thompson (see paragraphs 3.227 and 7.59 above).
69.	There is no reason whatsoever to believe that she suddenly fell into that error in paragraph 7.75, when she had concluded by paragraph 7.59, before considering Dr Thompson's evidence, that the evidence produced by the claimant was not persuasive. 
70.	Why was that evidence not persuasive? Firstly, it was difficult to test the robustness of some of the claims because the claimants had relied on commercial confidentiality. Secondly, where the Inspector had been able to test the claimant's claims, she had found them wanting in various respects.
71.	Those conclusions are reflected in the passage from paragraph 7.75 that I have set out above.
72.	It is then said that the reason why the evidence was not capable of being properly tested, that is to say that it was commercially confidential, was an irrelevant consideration which should not have been taken into account. I do not agree. 
73.	The reason why a party fails to produce evidence may very well be relevant to an assessment of the weight to be placed upon that evidence. If, for example, the claimant had refused to produce evidence out of mere caprice or had failed to produce evidence because of mere negligence, that might well have been relevant to the Inspector's assessment of the strength of the claimant's case. As it was, she plainly accepted and merely recorded as a fact that the evidence was not capable of being tested because the claimant had relied upon commercial confidentiality. In saying that, she was merely accepting the claimant's explanation for it not being possible to test the evidence, no more. 
74.	As for irrationality, the claimant's case is no more than a legalistic play on words. It is said that the Inspector had concluded in paragraph 7.66 that she was:
“... unable to conclude on the evidence that there are no alternatives to WB should that material no longer be available to CIBA.”
75.	The claimant then seeks to contrast that double negative with the positive in the penultimate sentence in paragraph 7.75:
“In my view, there is adequate evidence to conclude that if WB were to be no longer available, alternatives to meet the need for highly efficient retention and drainage aids exist, whether these be in the form of alternative bentonite resources or in the form of synthetic products.”
76.	These words should not be looked at in isolation, but against the background of what was in issue at the Inquiry. The claimant was contending that there was a need for Woburn Bentonite because it was unique amongst bentonites, and no alternatives were available for the paper‑making industry.
77.	The Inspector concluded that the evidence in support of the former proposition was not persuasive (see paragraph 7.59); and she was unable to conclude that there were no alternatives (paragraph 7.66).
78.	Clearly the two points, uniqueness and lack of alternatives, were inextricably interlinked, as the Inspector explained in paragraph 7.71:
“... I have concluded that the argument that WB is unique has not been demonstrated. Thus, it does not follow that the paper‑making industry would be faced with no alternative than to use inferior products.” 
79.	Hence her far‑from‑irrational conclusion in paragraph 7.75. The alleged distinction between the double negative in 7.66 and the positive in 7.75 is mere legalistic sophistry.
80.	Returning to Dr Thompson's evidence, Mr Martin laid stress on the final sentence in paragraph 7.59: 
“Consequently, it was not possible for me to assess the veracity of Dr Thompson's claim.”
81.	He submitted that because the Inspector had said that, it was wrong for her to place any weight at all on Dr Thompson's evidence. Where it had not been possible for the Inspector to assess the veracity of a claim, it was simply incapable of being a material consideration.
82.	I fail to see why that should have been so on the facts of the present case.
83.	Dr Thompson, who has relevant professional qualifications, had expressed doubts about the claimant's contention that the performance of Woburn Bentonite was unique. When it was put to him that he did not have any evidence to dispute the claimant's contention, he said that he did have such evidence, it was contained in a report, but it was contained in a report which he was unable to produce to the Inquiry because it was commercially confidential.
84.	The Inspector was therefore not able to test Dr Thompson's evidence. But that does not mean that she was required to ignore it completely, any more than she was required to ignore Mr Martin's evidence about those matters where he felt unable to produce supporting documentary evidence because of commercial confidentiality.
85.	It was for the Inspector to assess the weight to be given to Dr Thompson's doubts against the background that she was unable to test them. She was well aware of her inability to test them; see paragraph 7.62. Being well aware of this limitation upon her ability to assess Dr Thompson's evidence, she was nevertheless entitled to conclude that the doubt raised by him did raise a doubt in her own mind “about the claim that WB has unique qualities in terms of its use in paper‑making”.
86.	It will be remembered that the Inspector concluded that Dr Thompson raised a doubt in her own mind against the background of her already having concluded that the claimant's evidence was not persuasive. It is not as though she allowed a mere doubt to outweigh evidence which she had previously concluded was otherwise cogent and persuasive. Reading the Inspector's conclusions as a whole, it is plain that the doubt expressed by Dr Thompson was merely a part of the overall picture. 
87.	The remaining parts of the picture ‑‑ the lack of persuasiveness of the claimant's own evidence, the evidence about other retention and drainage aid systems, Dr Nazir's evidence, albeit that it was not conclusive in the Inspector's view, and “the highly competitive market” which appeared to her to operate in the retention and drainage aids for the paper‑making industry ‑‑ all pointed in the same direction. 
88.	Once her report is read as a whole, it cannot be said that the Inspector erred in having at least some regard to Dr Thompson's doubts, despite the fact that, as she well recognised, she had been unable to test them.
89.	I turn now to the second ground of challenge. 
90.	At the Inquiry, the claimant argued that since the interests of acknowledged importance (the AGLV and the CWS) were merely of local rather than national importance, it was unnecessary to establish a national need for Woburn Bentonite; a local need would suffice.
91.	Mr Martin submitted that the Inspector (and the Secretary of State in adopting her conclusions) erred in paragraph 7.75 and 7.103 in concluding that, because there was no national need because Woburn Bentonite did not make a unique contribution to the paper‑making industry in the United Kingdom or worldwide, there was therefore no need to set against the harm under issues 1 and 2. He submitted that the Inspector should have gone on to consider whether there was a local need sufficient to outweigh the harm that had been found to interests of local importance.
92.	The Inspector was obliged to deal with the case on need as it was presented before her at the Inquiry. She realised that the claimant was contending that if there was not a national need then a local need would suffice. The claimant's submissions to this effect are summarised by her in paragraphs 3.24 and 3.71‑3.73 of her report (see above). 
93.	But she explained in paragraph 7.49 that on the facts of this case the distinction between national and local need was more hypothetical than real: 
“While that may be so, [ie while it may be only necessary to establish a local need] the case put for the appellants is in fact one of national need. The need which the appellants claim is based on the value of Woburn Bentonite to the paper‑making industry. Accordingly, it is difficult to judge what the local need might be other than in the context of any impact of the proposal on the local economy of the area.”
94.	In truth, if the arguments on national need failed, there simply was no local need, apart from the needs of the companies, the claimant and CIBA, which the Inspector considered in paragraphs 7.72‑7.74 above, and the effect of the proposal on the local economy, which the Inspector considered in paragraph 7.81.
95.	At the outset in paragraph 7.75, the Inspector referred to the commercial interest of both the appellant company and CIBA for the extraction of fuller's earth to be permitted from the appeal site. It will be recalled that she had concluded that that should carry little weight in assessing the need for the development (7.74). 
96.	When drawing the threads together in paragraph 7.103, in paragraph (e) she concluded that none of the other considerations, which included the impact on the local economy, undermined the conclusions that she had reached upon the main issues. It is not surprising that she did not feel that the impact on the local economy undermined her earlier conclusions on need in view of her observation in paragraph 7.81: 
“... the scale of employment provided by [the claimant] is not likely to be of such significance to the local economy that its loss should weigh heavily in the balance in favour of the development.”
97.	The claimant's formulation of the need issue, which sought to distinguish between national and local need, whilst it might have been relevant for some kinds of minerals, was in effect an artificial construct in the case of Woburn Bentonite for the reasons explained by the Inspector in paragraph 7.49. 
98.	Accordingly, she was fully entitled to approach the issue of need in the manner set out in paragraphs 7.75 and 7.103. It is plain that she recognised that the landscape and wildlife designations were only of local importance; she carried out the balancing exercise against that policy background.
99.	Looking at the Inspector's Report overall, one cannot fail to be struck by the very great care with which she approached this and all of the other issues raised at the Inquiry.
100.	It follows that this application to quash the decision letter must be dismissed, as must the related challenge to the highways orders.
101.	Yes? 
102.	MR MOULD: My Lord, I apply for my costs. If your Lordship is minded to accept that application, I have put a schedule of costs before the court. The total figure is £8,807, and I would invite your Lordship to consider an assessment in that sum.
103.	MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: Yes. Mr Martin? 
104.	MR MARTIN: The schedule has been considered and has been agreed.
105.	MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: It has been agreed. And you obviously do not oppose the principle? 
106.	MR MARTIN: I do not.
107.	MR JUSTICE SULLIVAN: Very well, then. The application is dismissed. The claimant is to pay the first defendant's costs. Those costs are to be summarily assessed in the sum of £8,807.25.
108.	Any more for any more?
109.	Then it only remains for me to thank you both very much indeed for very helpful skeleton arguments, which are particularly useful in a case like this where you have a whopping great Inspector's Report to go through. It is very helpful to have clear signposts along the way. Thank you both very much.
	(3.35 pm) 
	(The hearing concluded)