The ten year period for enforcement: Is it really time for reform?

David Brock, Philip Kratz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations


The article examines the question as to whether a ten-year rolling period for enforcement, without more safeguards, strikes an appropriate balance in the public interest. The Law Society did not come to this conclusion lightly, but decided that it was necessary in order, primarily, to ensure that there is an element of certainty in the planning enforcement regime. The Committee had noted that the proposed enforcement provisions were causing great concern among not only planning, but also conveyancing lawyers. The certainty point is very important where land is bought and sold and The Law Society has lobbied Government and Parliamentarians against this clause. Solicitors check for breaches. At present they know they do not need to go back beyond the limitation periods. It should also be remembered that these cases concern houses. They are treated slightly differently in planning. The reason is the need for certainty and the need to provide special protection for people's homes.

Original languageEnglish GB
Pages (from-to)1005
Number of pages1
JournalJournal of Planning and Environment Law
Issue number8
StatePublished - 2011


  • Change of use
  • Enforcement notices
  • Planning conditions
  • Ten year immunity rule
  • Time limits

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Law


Dive into the research topics of 'The ten year period for enforcement: Is it really time for reform?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this