[2008] EWHC 1540 (Admin), 4 July 2008. An inspector should have found that the parts of the Hampshire minerals and waste core strategy relating to wharves did not satisfy the requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Several considerations that contributed to his decision not to recommend safeguarding land at Dibden Bay from development should not have been relied on and this in turn undermined the modifications he recommended to making parts of the core strategy sound. Claimant port operator (P) claimed that the local core strategy was not sound. P held that, while the strategy found a need for crushed rock, it didn't identify Dibden Bay as a possible location. The inspector involved had relied wrongly on considerations that land at Dibden Bay need not be safeguarded from inappropriate development and procedural shortcomings were also alleged, with P not being told of several relevant documents. Held: core strategy did not follow guidance in PPS12 that required Hampshire's crushed rock needs to be met. By putting off this question the core strategy also ended up neglecting the requirement of PPS12 to plan for at least the next 10 years. Final findings that while there had been a failure to comply with the procedural requirement to act fairly, the failure would not have affected the inspector's report and did not substantially prejudice P.