Hopkins Developments: fairness at a planning inquiry
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Hopkins Developments Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 470 explains what a fair opportunity to put your case means at a planning inquiry.
An inspector must not decide an appeal on a material case which a party had no reasonable opportunity to answer. But the inspector is not confined to the main issues identified at the beginning, and does not have to give a running commentary on how their thinking develops.
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
- [2014] EWCA Civ 470
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 15th April 2014
- Judge
- Jackson LJ, Beatson LJ and Christopher Clarke LJ
- Case number
- C1/2013/2213
The issues developed during the inquiry
Hopkins sought outline permission for 58 homes at the edge of Wincanton. The inspector dismissed the planning appeal, relying in part on the site’s sustainability and the effect on the area’s character and appearance.
Hopkins argued that those matters had not been identified as main issues and that relying on them was procedurally unfair. The High Court accepted that ground and quashed the decision.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. Both matters had been live issues in the evidence, including evidence from third parties. Hopkins had an opportunity to respond, even though it chose not to challenge some of that material.
The right is to a reasonable opportunity to answer
Paragraphs 47 and 62 explain the central principle: a party must know the case it has to meet and have a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence and make submissions about it.
The inquiry rules help achieve that result, but they are not a complete code of fairness. What fairness requires depends on the actual circumstances, the issues raised and the opportunities provided.
If an inspector takes a genuinely new line which has not been explored, the party may need a further opportunity to deal with it. That is different from reaching an adverse conclusion on an issue already being debated.
Third-party evidence cannot simply be ignored
An agreement between the applicant and the council does not make other participants disappear. Significant points raised by residents and other third parties may still require an answer.
The court said that the main parties should deal with those issues unless and until the inspector expressly says that they need not do so. Conversely, if a main party withdraws from an agreed position in a statement of common ground, the other party must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.
What the Court of Appeal actually decided
The Secretary of State’s appeal succeeded on procedural fairness. However, the High Court had dealt with that ground as a preliminary issue and had not decided Hopkins’ other challenges.
The Court of Appeal therefore remitted those remaining grounds to the High Court. It would be inaccurate to describe this judgment as finally disposing of every challenge to the inspector’s decision.
Read Hopkins Developments alongside Fairmount Investments, where a new decisive point had not been put to the affected party. The contrasting facts help explain the rule better than either case alone.
Read the Hopkins Developments judgment
The complete judgment is available to Gold Members below. Its discussion of the inquiry rules relates to the framework before the court in 2014; current procedural requirements should be checked separately.
Hopkins Developments Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026