header-logo header-logo

27 May 2020 / William Tyzack
Issue: 7888 / Categories: Features , Covid-19 , Property
printer mail-detail

Arrested development

21415
Development in lockdown: the pitfalls of an approaching deadline & compliance with permission conditions. William Tyzack reports
  • Minimal commencement of works: an obvious solution?
  • Difficulty in complying with pre-commencement conditions: the options available.
  • Coronavirus: challenges of protecting the workforce.

Pursuant to s 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) development work subject to a grant of planning permission must be begun within a period of three years, unless the planning authority has imposed, when granting permission, a different duration (whether longer or shorter). It is, furthermore, not permissible for a planning authority to extend the deadline by agreement with the landowner or developer. Conditions controlling the way in which the planning permission must be implemented may also be imposed by the planning authority, which may include works that are required to take place before the development work begins. These ‘pre-commencement works’ could include, for instance, discontinuance of any existing land use, removal of buildings, certain access or drainage works, or landscaping.

While recent relaxation of lockdown restrictions,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Bellevue Law—Lianne Craig

Workplace law firm expands commercial disputes team with senior consultant hire

EIP—Rob Barker

EIP—Rob Barker

IP firm promotes patent attorney to partner

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Muckle LLP—Ryan Butler

Banking and restructuring team bolstered by insolvency specialist

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll