Wildfish, R (on the application of) v Buckinghamshire Council & Ors

Planning permissions and their conditions are construed objectively, by asking what a reasonable reader would understand from the words read in context and with common sense. A drainage scheme is not a reserved matter under the statutory scheme for outline planning permissions. A condition requiring drainage details to accompany reserved matters therefore does not necessarily make every element of that condition subject to the deadline for submitting reserved matters. A permission granted under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is a separate permission. A reference to it in a reserved matters decision does not transfer the application to that permission unless the document, properly construed, has that effect. Where the documents show that reserved matters were approved under the original outline permission, the original conditions remain applicable.

The appellant, WildFish, brought judicial review proceedings concerning Buckinghamshire Council’s approval of reserved matters for a housing development. The outline permission authorised up to 170 dwellings and reserved appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. Condition 13 required foul-water drainage information, including wastewater-treatment upgrades, while a later permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 altered the timing of those requirements.

The Council approved the reserved matters application, describing it as made under the outline permission as varied by the section 73 permission. Lang J dismissed the judicial review: [2025] EWHC 3060 (Admin). The appellant argued that the application was out of time or substantially amended, and that the Council unlawfully treated it as referable to the section 73 permission. The central issues were the proper construction of the permissions and decision notice, and whether the reserved matters approval was lawful.

1. Appeal dismissed. The reserved matters approval was lawfully made, and Lang J was correct to dismiss the judicial review.
2. Planning permissions and conditions are public documents. Their meaning is determined objectively by asking what a reasonable reader would understand from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, read in the context of the permission as a whole, the statutory framework and common sense. The intentions or understanding of the developer and authority are not determinative.
3. Under section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and article 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, reserved matters are prescribed. They comprise access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, subject to the particular permission. Drainage is not itself a reserved matter. Condition 13 was therefore not governed, in all its requirements, by the deadline in condition 2 for submitting reserved matters. Its reference to condition 1 was a practical cross-reference requiring the reserved design details to take account of on-site foul-water infrastructure. The off-site wastewater-treatment upgrades remained to be dealt with under condition 13 before occupation.
4. The reserved matters application was not invalid because it lacked the full scheme and programme for off-site upgrades. The conditions-compliance table was an internal, extrinsic checklist and did not alter the proper construction of the permission.
5. A section 73 permission is an independent permission for the same development subject to new or amended conditions. The reference in the amended description and decision notice to the section 73 permission did not, on the reasonable-reader analysis, transfer the application from the outline permission, or create approval under both permissions. The application forms and decision notice identified the original outline permission; the section 73 variation did not affect the merits of the reserved matters; and the time for submitting reserved matters under both permissions had expired. Article 6 of the 2015 Order reinforced the need for an application to identify the outline permission to which it related.
6. The court left open whether reserved matters submitted in time under an earlier outline permission could, in an appropriate case, be approved under a later section 73 permission after expiry of the time limit. That question did not arise on the proper construction of these documents.

The conditions of the original outline permission, including condition 13, remained to be discharged.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Dove gave the judgment, with Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Lewison agreeing.
2. High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, Planning Court: Lang J dismissed the judicial review challenge to the Council’s reserved matters approval: [2025] EWHC 3060 (Admin).