119. I was provided with a copy of Mr Gerhold’s written objection which states as follows: “Building on VTG as proposed would be illegal under the Act by which the southern part of it was acquired, as the Act requires that the land be maintained as ‘a garden open to the public’ (London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, section 8, still in force). The Government was apparently unaware of this until it was brought to its attention in March 2019 (parliamentary answer 229633). This may not be in strict terms a planning matter, but it provides evidence of an inadequately prepared scheme.” 120. In my view, Mr Mould is in difficulty therefore in submitting that the point was not before the Inspector. It was before the Inspector, albeit it in modest fashion, via written representations and not from one of the main parties. Mr Mould sought to rely on Dr Gerhold’s assessment of the point as “not be[ing] in strict terms a planning matter”. Dr Gerhold is, however, a historian not a lawyer. Moreover, the implication of Mr Mould’s submission is that the views of members of the public attract less weight. This runs contrary to the recognised importance of the public to participate in environmental decision making (see for example the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters). Procedural fairness at a planning inquiry requires the Inspector to consider significant issues raised by third parties, even if those issues are not in dispute between the main parties. The main parties should therefore deal with any such issues, unless and until the Inspector expressly states that they need not do so. To hold otherwise would undermine the value of public participation in environmental decision making (Hopkins Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2014] PTSR 1145 and Secretary of State v Claire Engbers) [2016] EWCA Civ 1183)) 121. Thirdly, the Secretary of State, the applicant for planning permission, was on notice of the point and could reasonably have anticipated that it might be material. On 31 July 2019, the Trust’s solicitors wrote to the Secretary of State contending that locating the Memorial in the Gardens would breach s. 8(1) of the 1900 Act: “…there is an important legal impediment which prevents the proposal proceeding at all… Section 8 of the London County Council (Improvements) Act 1900, the statute empowering the LCC to create the southern part of VTG and to pass it to (what was then) the Commissioners of Works, requires that the area in which the Memorial is proposed to be built “shall be laid out and 43