Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

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 Birkenhead
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Lord Scott of Foscote
Lord 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