Cases - Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions

Record details

Name
Sage v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and the Regions
Date
[2003]
Citation
UKHL 22
Legislation
Keywords
Planning - appeals and applications - erection of incomplete development in breach of planning laws - what amounts to 'development' requiring planning permission - validity of enforcement notice - whether enforcement notice was served in time - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s. 55(2)(a) - Town and Country Planning Act 1990 s. 171(B)(1) - Planning and Compensation Act 1991 s. 4
Summary

This case concerned the interpretation of the term 'substantially completed' in the context of section 171B (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: enforcement action cannot be taken after the expiry of 4 years beginning with the date when the operations were 'substantially completed'. The House of Lords held that, in determining whether works are substantially completed, regard should be had to the developer's original intentions as to the totality of the operations. This exercise is relatively straightforward where a planning application has been made. In this case no such application had been made.

The developer appealed against the enforcement notice on the basis that:

  • the outstanding building works related only to the interior of the building and so did not require planning permission; and
  • 4 years had passed since the exterior of the building had been completed.

It was held that the enforcement notice was not out of time, because the developer had stopped short of what was originally intended and the building could not therefore be treated as a substantially completed building. A holistic approach should be taken.

Recently some planning authorities have picked up on a remark made by Lord Hobhouse that an operation that is not carried out fully in accordance with a planning permission will render the whole operation unlawful. This is being used by those authorities as a basis for requiring a new permission for alterations that would have previously being dealt with by way of minor amendments. It is widely believed that this approach is wrong and that minor amendments can still be agreed with the LPA without the need for a new application.

The Planning Act 2008 allows LPAs to make non-material changes to planning permissions, in effect allowing minor alterations to take place after permission has been granted - this should remove any LPA reliance on the Sage case.