Saxonbest Ltd., R (on the application of) v London Borough of Bromley

Transitional provisions in building regulations must be read together. Where a later regulation revokes earlier regulations but expressly preserves their application to plans or works already covered by them, the earlier requirements continue to apply as if they had not been revoked. They do not thereby become requirements contained in the later regulations. An exemption in a local authority registration scheme, tied to compliance with requirements contained in the later regulations, must therefore be construed according to that distinction.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated against the Crown Court’s dismissal of its appeal from a conviction by Bromley Magistrates’ Court. The conviction arose from failure to register a property under the London Borough of Bromley’s houses in multiple occupation registration and control scheme.

The property comprised self-contained flats. The remaining issue was whether the scheme’s exemption for accommodation created in a building required to comply with fire-safety requirements contained in the Building Regulations 1985 applied. The claimant relied on transitional provisions concerning building plans deposited before those regulations came into force.

1. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The claimant had abandoned the separate issue concerning whether the property was a house in multiple occupation under Part 11 of the Housing Act 1985.
2. Regulation 19 of the Building Regulations 1985 expressly operated subject to regulation 20. Regulation 20 provided that the regulations revoked by regulation 19 continued to apply to qualifying plans or works as if they had not been revoked.
3. The natural and ordinary meaning of regulation 20 was decisive. The preserved earlier requirements did not become requirements contained in the 1985 regulations merely because their continued application resulted from regulation 20. The claimant’s suggested analysis, based on revocation, re-enactment and revival under the Interpretation Act 1978, was rejected.
4. The court considered that this construction reflected the practical purpose of the transitional provision. Developers who had deposited plans and begun work before the 1985 regulations came into force were not required to resubmit plans or comply retrospectively with new requirements.
5. The single extant question was answered in the affirmative in favour of the local authority. The property was not within the relevant exemption, and the appeal was dismissed. Costs were summarily assessed at £2,414.62. Permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no prospect of success.

• Crown Court sitting at Croydon: dismissed the claimant’s appeal against conviction on 21 February 2003; the fine was reduced on the sentence appeal.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by way of case stated and ordered costs.