16 Passing or rejection of plans
- (1) Where plans of any proposed work are, in accordance with building regulations, deposited with a local authority, it is the duty of the local authority, subject to any other section of this Act that expressly requires or authorises them in certain cases to reject plans, to pass the plans unless ---
- (a) they are defective, or
- (b) they show that the proposed work they would contravene any of the building regulations.
- (2) If the plans ---
- (a) are defective, or
- (b) show that the proposed work would contravene any of the building regulations,
- (i) reject the plans, or
- (ii) subject to subsection (4) below, pass them subject to either or both of the conditions set out in subsection (3) below.
- (3) The conditions mentioned in subsection (2) above are ---
- (a) that such modifications as the local authority may specify shall be made in the deposited plans, and
- (b) that such further plans as they may specify shall be deposited.
- (4) A local authority may only pass plans subject to a condition such as is specified in
subsection (3) above if the person by whom or on whose behalf they were deposited ---
- (a) has requested them to do so, or
- (b) has consented to their doing so
- (5) A request or consent under subsection (4) above shall be in writing.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Previous legislation such as the Public Health Act 1936 authorised local authorities check building regulation applications. Section 64 imposed a duty on the local authorities regarding the passing or rejection of plans.
64 Passing or rejection of plans, and power to retain plans, and &c.
(1) Where plans of any proposed work are, in accordance with building byelaws, deposited with a local authority, the local authority shall, subject to the provisions of any other section of this Act which expressly requires or authorises them in certain cases to reject plans, pass the plans unless they either are defective, or show that the proposed work would contravene any of those byelaws, and, if the plans are defective or show that the proposed work would contravene any of those byelaws, they shall reject the plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy v Brentwood District Council
PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE
The mention of product liability, building warranty and latent defect
is a red herring and has nothing to do with the real issue, local authority
negligence. As shown above the legislation dating back as far as 1936 authorised
local authorities to approve or refuse building regulation applications. It is
wise to obtain building regulation approval prior to commencement of any works
which is why full plans applications were introduced many years ago. Builders
and architects do not have any responsibility with regards to the checking of
local authority approvals, the responsibility at law is for the local
authorities to carry out the checking of the proposals. Therefore, before any
work has commenced any negligence that has occurred would be unknown to the
builder. At this point there is no product, no building warranty or latent
defect. If local authorities carry out their duty imposed on them then there
would be no problems, however if they are negligent, it is solely their
responsibility and not the responsibility of others.
When a person or persons have a duty, care is an intrinsic part of the duty, and it should be natural for someone to care. If a person(s) makes a mistake, and it is pointed out to them, and they defend what they have done, then it can only be seen as a deliberate act because any normal, reasonable person(s) would show care.
Murphy v Brentwood District Council is not based on law (statute). It was designed to contain people and to stop them making claims against local authorities.The government, which includes the ministry of justice (a major government department), have used the case as a defense.
The human rights laws do not condone making innocent people responsible for the negligence of others.