The House of Lords has overruled the Court of Appeal in Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] UKHL 22; [2003] 16 EG 102 (CS) (the full judgment is available by clicking here). The case concerned the construction of section 171B(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and whether the works in question had been “substantially completed” within the four-year period allowed by the section. By the time the notice was served, the external structure of the building in question had been completed for more than four years, but plenty of work still needed to be done internally to make it fit for habitation. The Court of Appeal decided that the remaining work was not “development”, as defined in section 55 of the 1990 Act, and therefore did not require planning permission. In its view, the building operations that had to be completed more than four years prior to the issue of the enforcement notice were only those that constituted a breach of planning control. Therefore, if no further breach occurred in completing the development, there could be no further building operations to which an enforcement notice could apply.
Their lordships disagreed. The work required to complete the building did not come within the section 55 exception and required planning consent. If a building operation was not carried out, both externally and internally, fully in accordance with the planning permission granted, the while operation was unlawful.
Related article:
The House of Lords has overruled the Court of Appeal in Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2003] UKHL 22; [2003] 16 EG 102 (CS) (the full judgment is available by clicking here). The case concerned the construction of section 171B(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and whether the works in question had been “substantially completed” within the four-year period allowed by the section. By the time the notice was served, the external structure of the building in question had been completed for more than four years, but plenty of work still needed to be done internally to make it fit for habitation. The Court of Appeal decided that the remaining work was not “development”, as defined in section 55 of the 1990 Act, and therefore did not require planning permission. In its view, the building operations that had to be completed more than four years prior to the issue of the enforcement notice were only those that constituted a breach of planning control. Therefore, if no further breach occurred in completing the development, there could be no further building operations to which an enforcement notice could apply.
Their lordships disagreed. The work required to complete the building did not come within the section 55 exception and required planning consent. If a building operation was not carried out, both externally and internally, fully in accordance with the planning permission granted, the while operation was unlawful.
Related article:
A circular point of view Estates Gazette 28 July 2001, p110 (discussion of the Court of Appeal judgment).
