CG Fry in the Supreme Court: What the Decision Means for Developers, Landowners and Local Authorities
Posted on in Planning, Environment & Licensing
The Supreme Court’s recent judgment in CG Fry & Son Ltd v Secretary of State is fast becoming one of the most discussed planning decisions this year. It addresses the topics of planning certainty and the increasingly complex world of “nutrient neutrality”. For anyone navigating the planning system – developers, landowners, community groups or local authorities – the decision provides clarity on when appropriate assessments must be carried out under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and the role government policy plays in the grant of reserved matters approval and the discharge of conditions once planning permission has been granted.
The Background
CG Fry obtained outline planning permission in 2015 for a large mixed-use development in Somerset. The development site fell within the catchment of the River Tone and fed into the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Site.
Five years later, reserved matters approval for Phase 3 was granted, subject to certain pre-commencement conditions. Soon afterwards, new advice from Natural England highlighted that additional phosphate loading from the development risked harming the nearby Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar site – an internationally important wetland.
When CG Fry applied in 2021 to discharge its pre-commencement conditions, Somerset Council withheld its approval on the grounds that an “appropriate assessment” would be required, under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (Habitats Regulations) before a decision could be made.
CG Fry appealed the Council’s decision to the Planning Inspectorate.
The dispute eventually reached the Supreme Court, which addressed two fundamental questions in their judgment in October 2025:
1. Is an appropriate assessment required at the reserved matters or condition-discharge stage under Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations?
2. How far can local planning authorities rely on policy, rather than statute, to revisit issues that were not assessed at the grant of planning permission?
The Judgment
On the first question, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision. It confirmed that the Habitats Regulations can still apply even after planning permission has been granted. If a later stage of the planning process (such as the grant of reserved matters approval or the discharge of conditions) would give authorisation for the development to proceed, the local planning authority must require an appropriate assessment if the proposed development is likely to have a significant effect on a European site. In short, obtaining planning permission does not mean that the Habitats Regulations and the requirement for an appropriate assessment to be undertaken will no longer be relevant at later stages of the planning process.
On the second question, however, the Supreme Court allowed CG Fry’s appeal. Ramsar sites (such as the Somerset Levels and Moors Ramsar Site) are not protected by the Habitats Regulations. Instead, they derive their protection from the National Planning Policy Framework. The Supreme Court ruled that whilst national planning policy is a material consideration in the grant of planning permission, once planning permission has been granted, planning policy or a change in scientific advice cannot be used by a local planning authority to re-examine points of principle which have been accepted by the grant of planning permission. Planning legislation does not give a local planning authority the power to do that in the case of Ramsar sites as it does for European sites which are subject to the Habitats Regulations. Instead, in the absence of legislative power providing otherwise, the consideration of the grant of reserved matters approval or the discharge of conditions must be confined to matters which fairly relate to the subject matter of the reserved matters or condition in question.
Why it Matters
For the planning system, the decision reinforces familiar principles. First, the grant of planning permission really does matter; once it’s granted, the basic go-ahead for the development can’t easily be revisited or undone. Developers can feel reassured that policy changes or updated scientific advice cannot retrospectively alter the legal effect of a planning permission unless such policy is fairly related to the subject matter of the reserved matter or condition in question.
At the same time, the judgment recognises that environmental challenges evolve. Therefore, where a European site is involved, local planning authorities may still require appropriate assessments at later stages of the planning process.
For Ramsar sites, however, the Court has drawn a clear line. Policy does not have the same status as statute. This gives helpful clarity but also highlights a possible gap in planning legislation for the protection of Ramsar sites.
Although, this gap is likely to be short-term. The current draft of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill includes provisions which will see Ramsar sites included within the Habitats Regulations, and given the same protection as a European Site. The Bill has not yet received Royal Assent and statutory instruments will be required to bring the proposed amendments to the Habitats Regulations into force, and so until then the gap remains and the Supreme Court’s decision in CG Fry will remain relevant.