CG Fry & Son Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Somerset Council ([2025] UKSC 35)
This case concerns a proposed large-scale residential development near Wellington, Somerset, within the catchment of the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Site. The environmental issue at the heart of the dispute is the risk of phosphate pollution from the development affecting the Ramsar site.
Key issues
The Supreme Court considered two fundamental issues:
1. Whether the Habitats Regulations require an appropriate assessment before a local planning authority can discharge conditions attached to reserved matters approval under an outline planning permission.
2. Whether national planning policy (specifically, para 181 of the NPPF) can require an appropriate assessment or otherwise affect the discharge of conditions, in circumstances where the Habitats Regulations do not apply (i.e., for Ramsar sites).
Legal Context
The Habitats Regulations implement the EU Habitats Directive in UK law, requiring strict environmental assessment for developments likely to affect European sites. Ramsar sites are protected under national policy (NPPF), not directly by the Habitats Regulations. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 governs the grant of planning permission, including outline permissions and reserved matters.
Judgment Summary
Issue 1: Interpretation of the Habitats Regulations
The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s interpretation that Regulation 63 of the Habitat Regulations applies to decisions to discharge conditions attached to reserved matters approval when there is an effect on protected European sites. A purposive approach and the precautionary principle support this interpretation. New scientific information may trigger the need for further assessment before reserved matters or conditions are discharged.
Issue 2: Role of National Planning Policy and Ramsar Sites
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on Issue 2. Ramsar sites are not covered by the Habitats Regulations, and national policy cannot override legal rights conferred by planning permission. Once outline planning permission is granted, the developer acquires legal rights to proceed, subject only to the conditions imposed.
Practical Implications
Once outline planning permission is granted, LPAs cannot revisit or block matters already approved in principle, even if national policy or scientific advice changes.
The Habitats Regulations may require further assessment for European sites, but not for Ramsar sites unless conditions allow.
Planning permission confers legal rights. If an authority revokes or modifies permission, it must pay compensation under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Developers now have the assurance that they can proceed with development without fear of policy changes affecting their rights.
General government policy (NPPF, PPG) cannot override, or dilute legal rights conferred by planning legislation.
Advice
Review conditions carefully to understand the scope of discretion at later stages.
Monitor scientific advice for European sites but note that Ramsar sites are not covered by the Habitats Regulations.
Understand that planning permission grants legal certainty and rights to proceed.
National policy is a material consideration at the permission stage but cannot be used to frustrate development rights later i.e., these changes cannot be applied retrospectively.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has clarified the limits of planning authorities’ powers at the reserved matter and/or condition discharge stage, particularly in relation to environmental protection and the interplay between law and policy. The judgment provides certainty for developers and authorities regarding the scope of environmental assessment and the protection of legal rights following the grant of planning permission.
