When an authorised development comprises building operations (rather than a change of use) the planning authority cannot initiate enforcement action more than four years after "substantial completion" of those building operations¹. There has been considerable debate over what constitutes substantial completion.

Some have contended that completion of a single operation is required, while others have argued that completion of some (but not all) of a series of operations could suffice. The issue is important as enforcement will be precluded in respect of those operations which have been completed for more than four years.

House in need of finishing touches

In a recent case before the House of Lords (Sage v Secretary of State [2003]) a house was being built without planning consent. The development was incomplete without glazing, guttering, services, internal finishes or access to the first floor. The outstanding works essentially affected the interior of the building and did not usually of themselves require planning consent. The developer argued that the works which had been completed amounted to "development" under the planning legislation and were completed more than four years before the enforcement notice. Therefore, the developer argued, the development was substantially completed.

The holistic approach

Their Lordships, reversing the Court of Appeal decision, determined that it was necessary to consider the totality of the operations intended. It was the intention of the developer, in the absence of a planning consent, to which regard should be had. The developer intended that the works should result in a completed building. As this has not been achieved when the enforcement notice was served the development was not substantially completed.

1 S.171B Town and Country Planning Act 1990