Research Into the Use of Completion Notices Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

PAPER B1

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE - 18 DECEMBER 2001

RESEARCH INTO THE USE OF COMPLETION NOTICES UNDER THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (ss.94-96)

REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE & ENVIRONMENT SERVICES

SUMMARY

To consider and note recent research carried out by the DTLR in respect of the limited use of Completion Notices.

BACKGROUND

In August 2000 various agencies were commissioned by the former DETR to research ss.94-96 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 which provide for the service of a Completion Notice to achieve the completion of permitted development on which work has started but appears to have ceased.

The research had six principal objectives:-

To establish the level of their use.
To determine the effectiveness of their use to assist in optimal use of land resources.
To identify shortcomings or obstacles to their implementation and use.
To identify any possible changes which may improve their effectiveness.
To identify instances of good practice.
To prepare a practical and useful report to assist LPAs.

The Town & Country Planning Act 1968 introduced the Completion Notice to deal with authorised development that had been started but not completed. It provides for a system of service and confirmation of notices on the owner or occupier of land requiring the development to be completed within a specified period. If the development is not completed within this period the planning permission is terminated.

Very limited use has been made of this particular facility.

The report points out that there is some confusion as to the purpose behind Completion Notices. It is unclear whether the primary purpose was to ensure the completion of development or the termination of old permissions where work has commenced but there appears to be no reasonable prospect of completion; the report states:-

"It is essential that there is a mechanism to ensure that either a permitted development is completed, or that the permission dies after a reasonable period of time, both to ensure the planned release of development land and also for amenity reasons."

The research revealed that there is a major problem with the system inasmuch as a notice can not ensure either objective.

The notice does not retrospectively invalidate works already carried out and makes it more difficult for LPAs to override the effect of past grants of planning permission. It might be possible to impose a condition that the grant of permission would cease to have effect, if the development was not completed within a fixed period but Circular 11/95 "The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission" advises against the imposition of such conditions on the grounds of the lack of need and the difficulties of enforcement.

On the practice of the use of Completion Notices the report concludes that the overall use is low and that they are normally used to achieve the completion of development or to reduce the nuisance from uncompleted or derelict sites. In this regard they are part of a range of instruments such as Section 215 of the 1990 Act. The majority of notices involve small-scale housing development and nearly all the examples were in small town or rural locations. This would suggest that the mechanism is not much use in terminating old permissions.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

None.

OPTIONS

That the report be noted.

CONCLUSIONS

The DTLR hold the view that the Completion Notice system is an integral part of the current planning system. Nevertheless, the research found that there were just 29 instances where Completion Notices had been served in England in the last ten years. This indicates that the Completion Notice procedure does not properly fulfill the objective of complementing the time-limiting system of planning permissions enshrined in the 1990 Act. There is widespread concern that there is a need for an effective mechanism to terminate old and unwanted permissions which have not been completed, and that the present procedure is too complex and time consuming to fulfil this role effectively.

The key problem with the procedure is that the outcome is uncertain and it does not guarantee that a part finished development will be completed, or that the harm caused, for example to visual amenity, will be rectified. Furthermore, the requirement for confirmation by the Secretary of State seems to be completely unnecessary for the scale of development often involved.

The report advocates a number of changes to the present arrangements:

Greater thought should be given to tailoring the time period in the standard condition relating to the commencement of development to fit the situation. In particular, the period could be reduced to two years for minor development
The advice in Circular 11/95 against including condition requiring that the whole of an approved development be completed should be reviewed
No justification for referral to the Secretary of State, and this should be replaced by a right of appeal.
Better publicity for the system could lead to its greater use.

The report makes a number of recommendations broadly based on the aforementioned suggested changes to improve the effectiveness of completion notices.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report be noted.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

Completion notices (July 2001) Department of Transport, Local Government and Regions

Journal of Planning & Environment Law, November 2001 (pages 1243 - 1245 inc.)

Contact Point: Chris Hougham, Development Control Manager 823551

M J A FISHER
Director of Corporate and Environment Services