Still not on Balli but was sent judgement from Gladman.
The site was outside but could be seen from the Cotswolds AONB, a stuation the inspector said probably applied to most of the district.
It is important to understand what the issue at the Inquiry actually was. It was not primarily about the definition of valued landscape but about the evidential basis upon which this land could be concluded to have demonstrable physical attributes. Nonetheless, it is contended that the Inspector erred…because he appears to have equiparated valued landscape with designated landscape.
Always beware of unjustificated equiparation.
He goes on
There is no question but that this land has no landscape designation. It does not rank even within the landscape designation that is designed to protect the boundaries of the AONB and apparently its setting, which is NE9, a policy derived from the Structure Plan. It is not a Local Green Space within policies 75 and 76 of the NPPF. It has no designation at all. The Inspector, if he had concluded, however, that designation was the same as valued landscape, would have fallen into error. The NPPF is clear: that designation is used when designation is meant and valued is used when valued is meant and the two words are not the same.
in [the inspectors] description of demonstrable physical attributes needing to be shown rather than just popularity, he was not remotely persuaded that the points made … that it had attributes that took it out of the ordinary, but did not warrant formal policy designation.
The terms ‘demonstrable physical attributes’ was Justice Ousleys as far as I can tell.
In another part of the judgment Mr Ousley refers narrowly to NPPF para 15 and not at all to NPPG which refers to the CRWA duty on the setting of AONB. Very odd. Another reason why the Abercrombie test on the setting on AONB should be within the NPPF not in NPPG, if the courts treat NPPG as not as important. Which is not of course to state it should be given as great a weight.