Supreme Court Judgment 22 October 2025: C G Fry & Son Limited (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and another [2025] UKSC 35

The Supreme Court decision provides important clarification on the scope of environmental protection at different stages of the planning permission process.

The Court clarified that the 'rights conferred by a grant of planning permission are defined by that grant and cannot be overridden or diluted by government policy.' This provides some certainty for developers as it limits the risk of projects being impacted by changing government policy unless this is directly linked to the conditions of the planning permission. 

This decision highlights that environmental assessments may still be required even after outline planning permission is granted and affirms the importance of compliance with the Habitats Regulations.

2015: C G Fry & Son Limited (the appellant) is a property developer who was granted outline planning permission to build a mixed-use development including 650 houses on land in Somerset, near the River Tone. The River Tone flows into the Somerset Levels and part of a Ramsar Site which is a type of 'vulnerable' wetland site.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the 'Habitats Regulations'), which requires an “appropriate assessment” to be made in situations where a development could have an adverse environmental impact on a vulnerable site, does not directly protect Ramsar Sites. However, the NPPF states that Ramsar sites "should be given the same protection as sites protected under the Habitats Regulations".

2020: In 2020, the appellant was granted reserved matters approval.

Natural England published advice that same year which suggested that the 'nutrient neutrality' of Ramsar Sites could be adversely affected by new developments and authorities should carry out a Habitats Regulations assessment before granting planning permission.

2021: The appellant applied to discharge certain pre-commencement conditions. However, the Council refused to discharge the conditions on the basis that an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations was required. The appellant initially appealed this decision to the High Court and Court of Appeal, but the decision was upheld. 

This brings us to the current decision of the Supreme Court, which considered two fundamental issues:

1. Issue 1: Does regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations require an “appropriate assessment” to be undertaken before a local planning authority decides to discharge conditions in the reserved matters permission?
2. Issue 2: What is the effect of a grant of outline planning permission, and what is the impact on an outline planning permission of a policy adopted by the government and a change of scientific advice bearing on that policy?

Issue 1: The Court dismissed the appeal in relation to Issue 1 and held that the Habitat Regulations may require an appropriate assessment to be undertaken before discharging conditions in the reserved matters approval. This is to ensure that vulnerable sites are accorded a high degree of protection. It does not matter that outline permission has already been granted without the requirement for an appropriate assessment.

Issue 2: The Court allowed the appeal on the basis of Issue 2 and held that because the protection of Ramsar sites is governed by national planning policy rather than by legislation, the Council could not rely on the subsequent advice regarding nutrient neutrality to decline discharge of the conditions, unless those conditions are directly related to protecting the site.

The Court confirmed that the grant of both outline and reserved planning permission creates rights under planning legislation to develop land in accordance with the permission. It was held that it was 'not open to the local authority to refuse to discharge the sub-conditions on the basis that additional measures were required to promote the protection of the Ramsar site.'

As Lord Banner KC quotes, "the effect of the development on the Ramsar site was a legally immaterial consideration in the context of the conditions in question, and NPPF para. 194 could not make material that which was legally immaterial."