Geoff Salter BA MRTPI, a government's planning inspector, yesterday began the public trial of Aylesbury Vale District Council's 'core strategy', which sets out the blueprint for the huge growth destined for the area over the next two decades.

He will hear around 100 hours of evidence from AVDC and the army of parish councils, interest groups, developers and residents who oppose or support their plans.

And he will then be faced with a stark choice – to broadly back the council's plans, or deem them 'unsound'.

The east of Aylesbury, and particularly Bierton, where 10,000 new homes are currently earmarked, is most directly affected by Mr Salter's judgement.

But should he order a re-think, other locations on the town's borders, such as Stoke Mandeville to the south and Fleet Marston to the north, could find themselves back in the spotlight to take on new developments.

Residents in Winslow, Haddenham, Wendover, Buckingham and Newton Longville will also be keeping a close eye on his ruling, as these places have been singled out for development, too.

Yesterday (Tuesday) morning at the Civic Centre, Mr Salter set out his plan of action for around 12 days which have been scheduled for his examination in public, which will take place over a two month period.

"My starting point is the council has submitted what they consider to be a sound plan," he said.

"Those seeking changes must demonstrate why it is unsound with reference to the tests I have set out."

The inspector and AVDC were almost immediately thrown on the back foot when the admissibility of a piece of late evidence from the council was challenged.

Brian Robson, chairman of Bierton and Broughton Parish Council, said the important document, which calculates the sustainability of potential development sites around Aylesbury and was published in January, did not inform the core strategy process.

He said it would be unfair for the council to use it as evidence, even going as far as citing article six of the Human Rights Act.

Mr Salter said he would decide on the document by the end of this week, but did suggest that the issue could lead to a suspension of the hearings.

For the rest of the day, general topics were discussed, and battle lines drawn for when the hearing becomes more specific in the days to come.

Criticisms of the council included that they did not consider the north of Aylesbury enough and that their consultation was flawed.

Hany Gerkis, from Watermead Action Group, told the inspector that building to the east will 'generate more traffic and mean reliance on the private car'.

"It (the core strategy) also selects one of the ecological sites and allocates the site with the most flood risk," he added.

Andy Barton, Aylesbury Vale District Council's forward plans manager, had the job of rebutting criticisms of the strategy.

At the outset he told the inspector that the formation of the plan was 'exhaustive in order to respond to the opportunities and challenges facing the Vale', and 'involved significant consultation and engagement with key stakeholders'.

He said he believed the council had 'produced a core strategy which strikes the appropriate balance' between the environment and housing growth.

Mr Barton went on the offensive, arguing that some objections, particularly those of parish councils, took a 'rudimentary' and 'simplistic' approach.

He added: "The (Aylesbury) growth arc is clearly one of the most debated parts of the plan. The council is clear that on balance the east is the most appropriate."

The examination in public will last until March. Mr Salter is then expected to publish his report in July, which should be adopted by the council in September.