Appellant converting house to multiple occupation under Building Regulations 1976 — Appellants claiming exemption from registration scheme — Exemption based upon compliance with Building Regulations 1985 — Whether regulation 19 of 1985 Regulations encompassing properties converted under 1976 Regulations — Appeal dismissed
The appellant owned a property that it had converted into a number of self-contained flats. The plans had been deposited for the purposes of building regulation approval in October 1983, when the Building Regulations 1976 had been in force. However, by the time the building work was completed, in January 1986, those regulations had been superseded by the Building Regulations 1985.
Pursuant to section 346 of the Housing Act 1985, the respondent local authority had introduced a monitoring scheme so that houses in multiple occupation had to be registered. The appellant failed to register its property and, at first instance, it was found guilty of an offence under section 348G of the Housing Act 1985.
The appellant appealed by way of case stated. It argued that that its property was exempt from the scheme since, under para 4 of that scheme, properties were exempt if they consisted entirely of self-contained flats that, when created, had been required to comply with the 1985 Regulations. Although the building plans had been deposited when the 1976 Regulations had been in force, the appellant argued that regulation 19 of the 1985 Regulations effectively revoked the 1976 Regulations, thereby bringing its property within the ambit of the 1985 Regulations.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Regulation 19 of the 1985 Regulations was subject to the provisions of regulation 20. Therefore the regulations did not apply to buildings where the plans had been deposited prior to November 1985 and where work subsequently carried out did not deviate from those plans, as was the case with the building in question.
The purpose of para 4 was not to bring the substantive requirements of earlier legislation within the umbrella of the 1985 Regulations. Its purpose was to exempt from registration buildings that complied with the more recent regime, not buildings that had complied with the earlier, now revoked, regime. The building in question had been subject to the 1976 Regulations and was not exempt by virtue of the 1985 Regulations. It was therefore subject to the scheme.
Robin Howard (instructed by Judge & Priestly, of Bromley) appeared for the appellant; Frances McKeever (instructed by the solicitor to Bromley London Borough Council) appeared for the defendants.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
