Property unfit for human habitation — Grant for improvement and repair — Whether grant available for conversion of property from shop and flat to single dwelling — Whether local authority entitled to refuse grant — Application dismissed
The applicant, N, was the freehold owner of 1 Windsor Terrace, Totterden, Bristol, consisting of a shop with a flat above and a basement. In 1978 a closing order was made because the property was unfit for human habitation and the shop became empty from 1988. In June 1991 N applied for a mandatory restoration grant for the whole building, but was refused. In November 1991 she obtained planning permission for change of use to a three-storey residential dwelling. N then made a further application for a mandatory grant. The local authority claimed that they could not entertain the application. They were not satisfied that at the date of the application the dwelling fell within section 103 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
That section required that the dwelling should have been “… provided not less than the relevant period before that date”. “Provided” was defined as provided by construction or conversion; and “the relevant period” meant 10 years for this purpose: section 103(2). An application to quash that decision was refused; the applicant sought an order quashing the refusal. Under section 101(1) grants were payable by local housing authorities towards “the cost of works required — (a) for the improvement or repair of dwellings, …; and (b) for the provision of dwellings … by conversion …”. Section 112 imposed a duty on the local housing authority to approve applications to render certain dwellings fit for human habitation, subject to certain conditions. Section 112(4) provided: “If … the local housing authority consider that the relevant works include works in addition to those which will cause the dwelling to be fit for human habitation (‘the additional works’), they shall treat the application — (a) as an application under this section in so far as it relates to works other than the additional works; and (b) as an application [for discretionary approval] in so far as it relates to the additional works”. The issues were whether section 103 had the effect of preventing the housing authority from entertaining the application for a mandatory grant; and whether the proposed works were hybrid, ie works to make the dwelling fit for human habitation and additional works.
Held The application was dismissed.
1. It was necessary to determine whether the proposal was for the improvement or repair of a dwelling under section 101(1)(a); or for the provision of a dwelling by conversion of a building: section 101(1)(b).
2. If the true nature of the application for a mandatory grant was the provision of a dwelling by conversion of a building provided more than 10 years ago, section 103 did not prevent the housing authority entertaining it.
3. However, if its true nature was improvement or repair section 103 did prevent the authority entertaining the application as the proposed dwelling was not yet provided.
4. If the proposal was for the provision of a dwelling by conversion of a building, it came within the exception in section 112(4) and no question of a mandatory grant arose.
5. As regards section 112, in this case the authority were entitled to conclude that the application concerned the provision of a dwelling by conversion, which did not attract a mandatory grant and was not a hybrid attracting a mandatory grant in part. They were also entitled to conclude that the application was not one for improvement or repair of a dwelling.
John Virgo (instructed by the solicitor to Bristol City Council) appeared for the local authority; Frances Webber (instructed by Bobbetts MacKan, of Bristol) appeared for the applicant.