If you can stick with it (not exactly bedtime reading!) this judgment is worth a look for anyone in the housebuilding world. (To the relief of the developer in question no doubt!), it finds that a definition of "planning permission" did also cover the application for reserved matters.
On these facts then it would appear that common sense has prevailed, but this is a useful reminder of how important it is to make sure that the definitions used across contractual documentation are watertight and leave no room for ambiguity: ambiguity which might otherwise leave you battling it out in a courtroom.
The purpose of the transfer was for the seller to sell the site to the defendant with the benefit of OPP. In order for the OPP to be lawfully implemented the defendant had to obtain approval of reserved matters. The claimant's position is that the definition of planning permission in the transfer was confined to the OPP alone, notwithstanding the words used in the definition and indeed the definition of "planning permission" in the contract. On the claimant's construction I am asked to accept that the defendant purchased the site with the benefit of OPP for the price of £9.65million with the intention of building the development but could not lawfully implement the OPP because the ARM did not form part of the definition of planning permission in the transfer. This analysis reveals the absurdity of the claimant's contention.