Supreme Court hears important case on interpretation and implication in respect of planning permissions

The Supreme Court hear the appeal in London Borough of Lambeth v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government today. This is the first case in which the Supreme Court are asked to consider the scope and effect of its decision in Trump International Golf Club Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2015] UKSC 74 [2016] 1 W.L.R. 85 in the specific context of a planning permission. In particular, the Supreme Court is likely to give important guidance on the correct approach to interpreting a planning permission and whether it is possible to imply a whole new condition into a planning permission. The case concerns a planning permission granted in 2014 pursuant to section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of retail premises.  Before the Court of Appeal, Lambeth argued that the planning permission should be interpreted so as to restrict the range of products which could be sold from the premises, or a whole new condition to that effect should be implied. The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds. A copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is here. An earlier summary is here. Matthew Reed QC and Matthew Henderson are acting for the London Borough of Lambeth. Dan Kolinsky QC and Sasha Blackmore are acting for the Secretary of State. Christopher Lockhart-Mummery QC and Yaaser Vanderman are acting for Nottinghamshire County Council, the third respondent.