Town and country planning – Permission for development. Two applications were heard together because they contained some common issues, in particular, whether the inspectors appointed by the first defendant Secretary of State had omitted to consider an inspector's report into the emerging core strategy concerning the area's housing needs (the report). The Administrative Court held that, in the first claim, the report had been material and it could not be said that the decision would have been the same, such that the discretion not to quash the decision could not be exercised. However, with respect to the second claim, although the inspector had clearly been in error, it had not been one that had clearly affected the outcome.