Supreme Court judgment on environmental protection of ‘Ramsar sites’: Legal reaction

The Supreme Court has today (22 October) handed down its judgment on a landmark 'nutrient neutrality case that considers the environmental protection of certain wetlands sites during the planning process.

In CG Fry & Son Limited v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2025], the court considered the Habitats Regulations 2017 in relation to the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.

The Supreme Court ruling enables councils to ask for updated environmental checks even after granting planning permission if there are potential risks to protected sites. However, authorities can’t use the Habitats Regulations to protect “Ramsar sites” unless there are specific conditions to do so. 

Background to the case

Somerset West and Taunton Council had granted property developer CG Fry & Son had been granted outline planning permission in December 2015 for an extensive residential development on land that falls within the catchment area of the River Tone, and feeding into an area designated as a ‘Ramsar site’. 

Natural England issued new scientific advice in 2020 warning that developments could increase phosphate pollution, harming the Ramsar site. It recommended that habitats regulations assessments (HRAs) be conducted before approving developments that might increase phosphate levels. One way of demonstrating that there was no adverse affect on the integrity of the site was use of the nutrient neutrality rules.  

When the developer sought approval to discharge conditions for Phase 3 of the development, which involved building 190 homes, the council refused, citing the need for an HRA based on the new advice and paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which said Ramsar sites should be given the same protection as European sites.

CG Fry & Son has since challenged this decision all the way to the Supreme Court. An appeal to a planning inspector was dismissed and a failed challenge to the High Court was upheld by the Court of Appeal, which agreed that the Habitats Regulations and NPPF applied. 

The Supreme Court upheld the principle that environmental protections under the Habitats Regulations apply to decisions on reserved matters. 

However, it also set out that Ramsar sites are not protected by the Habitats Regulations. 

Legal comment

Ben Standing, Partner specialising in planning and environment at Browne Jacobson, said: “The Supreme Court confirms that the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of Habitats Regulations is correct in relation to their application in discharge conditions.

“However, it also sets out that the same protection isn’t afforded to Ramsar sites unless the condition specifically refers to this protection. 

“This is potentially a big blow for the protection of Ramsar sites in the short term, although we expect this will continue to be much of an issue in the longer term due to proposed amendments within the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which are designed to place Ramsar sites on an equal footing with European sites.

“From a broader perspective, this decision should be considered in the context of Housing Secretary Steve Reed’s comments earlier this week about his job being ‘on the line’ over the government’s pledge to build 1.5 million homes during this parliament. 

“Given he considers a cumbersome planning process and environmental regulations, in addition to skills shortages, as having a negative impact on building rates, it’s likely the government will support the Supreme Court judgment.

“This ruling appears to be based on a legal technicality rather than in the best interests of certain sites, but it’s tuned into the mood music that has identified environmental protection as a key blocker to development.”