CG Fry & Sons Limited v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (2025) UKSC 35

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgement in the case CG Fry & Sons Limited v. Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (2025) UKSC 35 in October 2025. The case concerns whether an appropriate assessment in multistage planning consents is required at the reserved matters stage and the discharge of planning condition stage.

CG Fry & Sons Limited (“the developer”) had been granted conditional outline planning permission for a large-scale residential development and reserved matters had been approved. The conditions of the reserved matters approval were delayed because of nutrient loading issues on the nearby Ramsar site (a wetland site of international importance).

The Local Planning Authority (LPA) claimed that an appropriate assessment was required to demonstrate phosphate neutrality before the conditions could be discharged and failed to determine the application to discharge planning conditions in June 2021.

The site in question is a Ramsar site but not a European Site, this is unusual. It is European sites that require an appropriate assessment to be completed via the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Regulations). Although the development site was situated near a Ramsar site and not a European site, the consideration of appropriate assessments was still relevant to this case because the NPPF now requires Ramsar sites to be provided the same level of protection as a European site, however this only became the case after the original planning permission was granted.

This resulted in an appeal by the developer which was dismissed by the Planning Inspector in November 2022. An appeal against the Inspector’s decision was subsequently dismissed in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the conclusion being that condition discharges in respect of reserved matters approval could trigger appropriate assessments.

The grounds of appeal in the Supreme Court related to two issues of planning law:

Issue 1: Whether the Regulations applied and whether an appropriate assessment is required before an LPA decides to discharge conditions requiring the approval of reserved matters in a grant of outline planning permission.

Issue 2: What the effect is on an outline planning permission where new policy or advice arises affecting sites which are not European sites afforded protection under the Regulations but are subsequently afforded protection under planning policy.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on Issue 2 and found the LPA’s decision to refuse to discharge the conditions unlawful and dismissed Issue 1 on the basis the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation of the Regulations.

The key takeaways are as follows:

Issue 1:

• For sites protected under the Regulations, an LPA can lawfully require an appropriate assessment to be conducted at both the conditions discharge stage and the reserved matters stage. Whilst the clarity is helpful, it is not good news for developers going forward given the delay and costs caused by appropriate assessments. However, clearly such an approach will ensure such sites are protected from harmful impacts.
• A further question is whether an appropriate assessment can be required if one has already been conducted, for example, when the outline permission was granted. The Court did not deal with this point directly however, it is likely that a further appropriate assessment may be required when there have been material changes since the original permission was granted. This is because the original assessment may no longer be ‘appropriate’.
• On a positive note, once Schedule 3, paragraph 1 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 comes into force, developers will have the option to pay a nature restoration levy to satisfy their obligations relating to European and Ramsar sites, specifically for impacts addressed in an Environmental Delivery Plan. This would negate the need to undertake appropriate assessments in respect of those specific impacts although the financial cost will be dependent on the charging schedule in the specific Environmental Delivery Plan.

Issue 2:

• C G Fry won because the development was located on a Ramsar site but not a European site. Therefore, an appropriate assessment was not required as Ramsar sites do not fall within the Regulations and are only protected under planning policy which was not in place at the time of the outline decision.
• The Court confirmed that when planning permission is granted “there is a fundamental change in the legal position in that it creates rights under the planning legislation for the developer to develop land in accordance with the permission” whether that be full or outline planning permission to provide the developer with assurance.
• Legislation cannot be “overridden or diluted by general policies laid down by central government, whether in the form of the NPPF or otherwise” meaning that the LPA is not permitted to revisit points of principle.
• The LPA is limited to the provisions of the condition when determining discharge of condition applications.
• Watch this space – Issue 2 will be overtaken as the status of Ramsar sites is set to receive statutory protection pursuant to paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (“2025 Act”) meaning that appropriate assessments may be required in respect of Ramsar sites at all stages too.

In short, we have clarity that multi-stage planning consents relating to European sites (soon to include Ramsar sites) may trigger the requirement for an appropriate assessment. The proper purpose of outline planning permissions lives on but a barrier could be created if a condition has sufficient nexus requiring the decision maker to have regard to Ramsar impacts.

How we can help

If you would like to discuss any of the topics mentioned in this article, please get in touch with our commercial real estate team.