Building permit had not lapsed due to slow progress of construction work

A house builder in Sande in Vestfold was granted permission in 2001 to construct a residential building. In 2014, the municipality took the view that the building permit had lapsed under Section 96 of the Planning and Building Act of 1985, on the grounds that only preliminary ground works had been carried out on the site and that construction work had been suspended. The municipality issued an order requiring the property to be restored to its original condition.

When the house builder failed to comply with the order, the municipality imposed a coercive fine. The builder did not pay the fine. When the municipality sought enforcement of the fine, he brought proceedings challenging its validity.

The issue before the courts was whether the progress of the construction work had been sufficient to prevent the permit from lapsing. If so, both the municipality’s order and the coercive fine would be invalid.

The Supreme Court, sitting in full bench, concluded—unlike the Court of Appeal—that the law does not require the construction of a house to be completed within a reasonable time in order for the permit not to lapse. A majority of three justices held that, under the statutory provision, it is sufficient to carry out work which, over a two-year period, makes a real contribution to the progress and completion of the project in order to avoid the work being considered suspended. Work of negligible significance must be disregarded. The builder had satisfied this requirement, and the permit had therefore not lapsed. The order to restore the site, and consequently the coercive fine, was therefore invalid, and enforcement was stopped.

A minority of two justices took the view that the statute sets somewhat stricter requirements for progress, meaning that within a two-year period, works of more than insignificant scope must be carried out. On this interpretation of the law, the permit had lapsed.

The judgment provides guidance on the requirements for progress in construction projects.

Source: Supreme Court