Sage (Respondent) v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others (Appellants) Country/Territory United Kingdom Type of court National - higher court Date Apr 10, 2003 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name House of Lords Seat of court London Judge Lord Nicholls of BirkenheadLord Hope of CraigheadLord Hobhouse of WoodboroughLord Scott of FoscoteLord Rodger of Earlsferry Reference number [2003] UKHL 22 Language English Subject Land & soil Keyword Authorization/permit Land-use planning Abstract In 1999, the Maidstone Borough Council served on Mr. Sage an enforcement notice under Part VII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Notice informed him that the Council considered that he was in breach of planning control in erecting a dwelling house and requiring its removal. Mr. Sage appealed on the two main grounds that the building was an agricultural building and did not require planning permission and, secondly, that the notice had been served outside the four year time limit permitted by s.171B(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 171B(1) provided: "Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of building (…), no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed." The Council considered that, having regard to its layout and appearance, the building was not an agricultural building and was not designed as such but was a dwelling house. The House of Lords decided that the Councils’ conclusion on this point was correct. Therefore that ground of appeal failed. This led on to Mr Sage’s further ground for challenging the Notice, that it was out of time. Mr Sage submitted that the building had been completed more than four years ago and that the work remaining to be done was all either internal work or work which did not materially affect the external appearance of the building. The House of Lords was of the view that the building was to be classified as an unfinished dwelling house. It was unfit for habitation. The floor at ground level consisted of rubble, there were no service fittings and there was no staircase. The work carried out was work in the course of completing the construction of the building. Where an operation was started outside the four year period but not substantially completed outside that period, the notice could nevertheless require the removal of all the works including ancillary works. Therefore the Notice had not been served after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the building operations were substantially completed. The appeal was allowed. Full text sage-1.htm