Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

Sage (Respondent) v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and others (Appellants)

País/Territorio
Reino Unido
Tipo de la corte
Nacional - corte superior
Fecha
Apr 10, 2003
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
House of Lords
Sede de la corte
London
Juez
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough
Lord Scott of Foscote
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Número de referencia
[2003] UKHL 22
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Tierra y suelos
Palabra clave
Autorización/permiso Manejo de tierras
Resumen
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.
Texto completo
sage-1.htm