Lawson Builders: retrospective permission and conditions
Lawson Builders Limited and others v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWCA Civ 122 concerns two houses built without complying with a precondition in their planning permission.
After obtaining a fresh permission with revised highway conditions, the owners argued that they could choose not to implement it. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument: the development had already been completed and the permission operated retrospectively.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2015] EWCA Civ 122
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 25th February 2015
- Judge
- Pitchford LJ, Davis LJ and Lewison LJ
- Case number
- C1/2013/3479/QBACF
The development could not be made prospective again
The original permission required highway details before development began and highway works before occupation. The houses at Bracken Hill, Ackworth were built, and one was occupied, without the required compliance.
An appeal in 2010 resulted in permission with revised conditions, including deadlines for submitting details and carrying out the highway works. Those works were not completed.
The owners later sought certificates on the basis that the development had acquired immunity through the passage of time. They argued that the 2010 permission was merely an alternative they had never chosen to implement.
Section 73 did not graft new conditions onto the old permission
The court explained that a successful section 73 application results in a new permission, rather than editing the old one in place. Here, the houses already existed and the original precondition could no longer be complied with before construction.
In that setting, the successful application necessarily involved retrospective permission. The power came from section 73A, with conditions imposed under section 70.
The inspector did not have to name section 73A expressly where that power existed and the meaning and effect of the decision were clear. The court found no unfairness on these facts, while recognising that other circumstances might require prior warning.
The new obligations took effect
There was no further proposed construction whose commencement the owners could choose to postpone. The new permission regularised the completed development and its conditions imposed current obligations.
The owners could not rely on the permission’s protection while treating its conditions as optional. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal against the later lawful-development decision.
This is not a general rule that every new permission for a site automatically displaces every earlier permission. The completed works, irremediable breach of the precondition and wording of the grant were central.
Identify the correct procedure and the permission’s effect
Lawson Builders is useful where works have already departed from a permission. The label on an application is not a substitute for understanding what has been built and what the resulting permission does.
Read Lambeth and Finney for later section 73 authorities. Lawson is not a means of avoiding their distinct limits on the content and interpretation of a new permission.
The enforcement periods discussed in this 2015 judgment are historical and must not be copied into current advice without checking the applicable provisions.
Read Lawson Builders
The complete Court of Appeal judgment is available to Gold Members.
Lawson Builders Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026