R (WildFish) v Buckinghamshire Council & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 283
WildFish is an important Court of Appeal decision on how outline planning permission, reserved matters, condition discharge and a later section 73 permission fit together.
The environmental background involved foul drainage and wastewater capacity for a residential development at Maids Moreton, but the reusable planning-law principles concern the legal architecture of the permissions rather than a new general environmental duty.
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
- [2026] EWCA Civ 283
- Court
- Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
- Judgment date
- 13th March 2026
- Judge
- Lewison LJ, Lewis LJ and Dove LJ
- Case number
- CA-2025-003113
Condition 13 was not itself a reserved matter
The outline permission reserved specified matters for later approval. It also imposed a separate condition requiring details of foul-water drainage.
The Court of Appeal held that the drainage condition was not transformed into a reserved matter merely because drainage information was relevant to the development. Reserved matters have their statutory meaning. A requirement imposed through a separate planning condition remains a separate condition unless it falls within the reserved matters themselves.
The reserved matters application did not need to discharge the drainage condition
The reserved matters application could therefore be determined without simultaneously resolving every matter required by condition 13. The on-site drainage details considered in the reserved matters process were distinct from the off-site wastewater infrastructure issue controlled by the separate condition.
This is an important practical distinction: a reserved matters approval does not necessarily discharge or supersede other conditions on the outline permission.
The later section 73 permission was a separate planning permission
A later permission was granted under section 73. The Court reiterated the orthodox position that a section 73 permission is a separate planning permission. It does not retrospectively rewrite the legal history of applications made under the original permission.
The later amendment of the description of the reserved matters application to refer to the section 73 permission did not transform the application into something materially different. Read objectively, a reasonable reader would understand which outline permission the reserved matters approval related to.
The Court deliberately left one broader question open
The Court did not decide the wider question whether a reserved matters application submitted in time under an original outline permission could later, after the submission deadline had expired, be approved under a subsequent section 73 permission.
That issue did not arise on the facts and should not be treated as having been resolved by WildFish.
Why WildFish matters
The case is particularly useful when dealing with complex developments where outline planning permission, reserved matters, condition discharge and section 73 applications overlap.
It reinforces the need to identify the legal function of each approval rather than assuming that all later approvals merge into one permission or one application.
Read the full WildFish judgment
Planning Geek holds the approved Court of Appeal judgment in the protected case law library. Gold Members can open the PDF below.
WildFish Case Law Page Updated: 11th September 2026