Fairmount: the right to answer an inspector’s new point
Fairmount Investments Limited and others v Secretary of State for the Environment [1976] 1 WLR 1255 is a leading authority on fairness at an inquiry.
The problem was not that an inspector disagreed with the owners’ case. It was that the inspector relied on a new material point about the buildings’ foundations without giving the owners a proper opportunity to answer it.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [1976] 1 WLR 1255
- Court
- House of Lords
- Judgment date
- 24th June 1976
- Judge
- Lord Diplock, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Edmund-Davies and Lord Russell of Killowen
Clearance or rehabilitation
Southwark proposed compulsory purchase and clearance of houses. The owners objected, arguing that rehabilitation was a realistic alternative.
The condition of the properties and the work needed to improve them were therefore important. During the inquiry and inspection process, the inspector formed a view that inadequate foundations and continuing movement undermined the rehabilitation case.
The difficulty was that this was not the case the council had put forward. The owners had not been alerted to the decisive concern or given a fair opportunity to produce evidence addressing it.
Expertise did not remove the duty of fairness
An inspector is not obliged to accept evidence just because it is uncontradicted. Nor must an inspector abandon professional experience or observations made on a site visit.
But those freedoms do not justify deciding against a party on a new material issue which that party could reasonably have answered if told about it.
The House of Lords upheld the decision quashing confirmation of the compulsory purchase order. The affected owners had not received the fair opportunity required by the procedure.
Not every adverse finding is a new issue
The distinction matters. A party may know that a question is in dispute, present its evidence, and still lose. Fairmount does not require the inspector to disclose every provisional conclusion before deciding an appeal.
The later Court of Appeal judgment in Hopkins Developments explains the contrast. There, the relevant issues had been raised in the evidence and the developer had an opportunity to address them, although they were not initially identified as the main issues.
Fairmount is most useful where the complaint can identify the new point, explain why it was not reasonably apparent earlier, and show what evidence or submissions the party was prevented from providing.
Use the principle, not just a familiar phrase
The judgment is often associated with an expression about having a fair chance. The legal substance is the opportunity to know and answer the material case, in the particular procedural context.
This case concerned a housing compulsory purchase inquiry. Its fairness principle is reusable, but the statutory route and applicable inquiry rules still need to be identified in a current planning dispute.
Read the Fairmount judgment
The original judgment has now been supplied to Planning Geek and is available to Gold Members below.
Fairmount Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026