Town Planning and Building Control - Essay Example

TOWN PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL BY [name of the organization] [author’s name] [date of fulfillment] PART I 1. Outline the flaws and efficiencies in current system of planning and briefly summarize in your own words. ---- The current system of planning is very much huge in structure and would need more administrative and legal follow ups for a successful determination. As the Building Regulations 2000 has been amended 5 times there are more chances for more recommendations before it really gets stated to be effective enough in practical fields. The Building (Amendment) Regulations 2001 proceedings make the whole thing weak, as it hardly gets enough time to get hold of the situation. These are the dominant framework of every possible plan and to control development. The third main aspect related to this is the directly related to Secretary of State for bearing the responsibility in determining planning policy (The LABC Building Control website E&W). This distribution is the biggest strength in making the current system of planning more effective and systematic. Added to this, there are lots of modifications being made in order to give more safety and proper security to the residents. 2. What is a ‘plan-led’ system of development control? What proposals are put forward reform of this system? --- The plan-led system is the process for the plans for future constructions. It is the specified planning system in England and Wales. The plan-led system was practiced after the declaration made by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act of the Parliament. It was in effect from December 2004 and has been well followed. According to the current planning system, states that the planning applications should be sorted as per the meter and relevance of the associated development plans. Added to this there is the proposal to eliminate local plans and unitary development plans. Under local circumstance there will be an equal consideration made over the out dated plans. These will be securitised and will be kept as per the development proceedings in them. The chief motive is to reform all the out dated plans with all modernised safety and precautionary measures. 3. A new single level of plan is proposed to replace existing requirements for structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans. What might this be known as and of what will it comprise? --- There is the new single level of plan is proposed to replace existing requirements for structure plans, local plans and unitary development plans. In place of all the local plans and unitary development plans there will be this very new single level of plan called Local Development Framework. These are 1) There is the presentation of statements with all the core policies in it. This will be the means for the necessary requirement list collection from the local authority. It is a straight way for the declaration of all the plans and programmes that suits the local bodies more perfectly. The whole responsibility of promoting and controlling will be well structured and will be perfectly followed. 2) There is the placement for more action plans with all declarations and perfections. The geographical changes are specified as town centres, urban extensions and neighbourhoods’ undergoing renewal constructions. 3) The proposal also states the provision for all those areas with changes and as has been shown in maps. The action will be done will absolute planning and there will be no loop holes left for the same. 4) As the plans are all produced wit proper basis, they would undoubtedly take much less time to get prepare and amend. There will be less consumption of time for the up to dates. 4. Do you think the proposal put forward will be effective? Give reasons for your answer. --- I personally see no point of denying the proposal. It is well organised and has got all the necessary points. It will definitely prove itself to be effective and will be of great demand. The amendment of the term "Building Work" added to itself the provision for "renovation of thermal elements". This particular section has got addition of the utmost energy that gets used by the 'space cooling' and the 'space heating' systems. Both these systems are determined to be considered as the subjects with the hold over the efficiency limits of al sorts of energy that gets controlled through the means of 'energy metering', and devices of the same cadre. As a matter of fact the Building and Approved Inspectors (Amendment) Regulations 2006 gets more support then ever because of the revised calculation of a building with the existence of Carbon/Energy Targets and Carbon/Energy Emissions. I also find it very noteworthy to mention about the "competent persons schemes" in the new proposal. As per the new regulation the buildings must get tested for 'Airtightness'. This particular provision was ideally limited to a lesser unit of 10 m³/m²/s, however as per the new regulations there are this building ventilation provisions that makes the system more full proof. 5. Outline important shortcomings with the current system of Building Control and briefly summarize in your own words, the reasons given for change. --- The new regulation for planning abolished the use of the term 'building work' and included the predominant category of household electrics in it. Everything is very much strategical, focussed but is very much short in description. This limits the comprehensiveness of the content and as such creates confusions of meaning. There was this effort made by Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006, for the application of micro-generation in the strategical unit of Building Regulations. This particular thing was not much highlighted in the current system of Building Control. There was even the extension of the time limit prosecuting contraventions with the Building Control proceedings. There is no such step forwarded for the concerns of energy conservation, energy use or at the most with carbon emissions in the building periphery. There is again this Spatial Development Strategy to be handled by the Mayor. This no doubt builds up the distribution of work under hierarchical system. However more stages or steps in the system make ways for more corruption. It is here that I believe the authoritative handling has to be more particular. 6. What are the ‘options’ in the package? Do you think the proposal put forward will be effective? Give reasons for your answer. --- The predominant aspect and the determined ‘options’ in the new planning package are being enlisted in various part in alphabetical manner. These are stated as below - A. Structure B. Fire Safety C. Site Preparation and resistance to moisture D. Toxic Substances E. Resistance to the Passage of Sound F. Ventilation G. Hygiene H. Drainage and Waste Disposal I. Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems J. Protection from falling, collision and impact K. Conservation of Fuel and Power L. Access to and use of Buildings M. Glazing - safety in relation to impact, opening and cleaning N. Electrical Safety The proposal as has been forwarded is perfectly effective and has got all the resources for betterment of the planning system ("Sound insulation and testing guide for the UK Building Regulations"). There are all the possible consequences that may be subsequent to the national policy statements. It may also override the plan and the all possible changes in the minutely handled local circumstance. The plan has been amended and many new aspects are added to make it stronger, safer and equally very effective for the country. PART II THE CASE STUDY As per the given case, it was HY Associate Ltd., who persuaded RAR Builders, a construction of seating bank for an outdoor event within an amount of £20,000. The offer was made in a form with the company’s standard terms of business. It is here that a term declared that the contract price will differ as per the cost and availability of labour in the construction. The next letter it has been demanded that the work cannot be extended for more than a week without including the price variation clause in it. The order here cannot be considered valid as there was no confirmation made regarding the acceptance of it. RAR Builders did not reply anything regarding the contract letter. However they dealt with the contract and completed the construction as per the instructions provided by HY Associate Ltd. the completion was done, with the time strain. In the mean time as HY Associate Ltd. received no confirmation of the receipt from RAR Builders; they decided to cancel the order due to the presumed ‘lack of interest’ of the builders. To confirm the cancellation of the assignment, HY Associate Ltd. again sent a letter to RAR Builders; in order to cancel the contract. RAR Builders received this cancellation order, but it had already gone more than the halfway in the contract follow ups. RAR Builders could not take it and after the completion of the work, it informed HY Associate Ltd. about it. Along with the completion information; RAR Builders sent and extra bill of £24,000 to HY Associate Ltd. to be paid (Prof Andrew Tettenborn, THE LAW OF CONTRACT, 2007-2008). As the proceedings get forwarded, Richard threatens to sue the company for his share. His partners Alan and Raymond were juxtaposed in a state of confusion about being a part of the case. They were not sure whether they should join Richard or get separated to avoid legal proceedings. As a matter of fact Richard is very much confident about the compensation. But his partners, Alan and Raymond were aware of their negligence towards the confirmation procedure of the receipt. In this case I find that Richard is not correct in his approach as his company has ignored the part for the confirmation of receipt. Though he made an effort in completing the work, yet his negligence towards the confirmation of the receipt cannot be ignored. This is an absolute act of negligence towards the persuasion of duty by RAR Builders. It is true that the financial investment made by RAR Builders is much more than HY Associate Ltd. and at the same time it has completed the work as per the given instruction. However this doesn’t support the case. The simple reason is that the contract did not include the matters related to price variation made in the contract. It is more about the clause regarding the validity of the order. It has been clearly stated that the order will not be considered as valid unless there is the confirmation to be done through return post, if the acceptance has been made. This is deliberately ignored by RAR Builders, not just once but twice. Moreover, Richard cannot sue the company all alone if his partners are not with him. Since the whole case is against RAR Builders, it is very important to have the partners along. RAR Builders cannot claim to sue HY Associate Ltd. as it violated the demand for the confirmation of receipt. This is totally against the professionalism of the company. As per the legal authorisation, it is very important to respond to the client company as per the mode of response. If the company doesn’t confirm acceptance of the contract than the contract remains open and he has got no authorisation to continue with it. It has been discovered that as in case of Entores Ltd, the matter was about ‘acceptance on receipt’ for a contract. In this case as the acceptance was made but was not well communicated. There was the cancellation of order and it was obvious. In this case of HY Associate Ltd. RAR Builders and HY Associate Ltd.; HY Associate Ltd. at least gave a notice about the cancellation of the contract and that is something very professional about them. As we look at the case of Adam v Linsdale, we got to know that postal acceptance is also very dicey if there is any ignorance. In the contracts that are said to be effective on posting the confirmation of acceptance, the reply is mandatory. This is straightly a subject to reasonableness that gets demanded, and express the need for reservation contained in the contract offer. This is very much applicable to the instances for any kind of lost delayed or destroyed consequence. The response with deemed effectiveness with a contract also results in a state where the contract remains open due to nonconfirmation of the receipt of the contract. This happened in case of Bradbury v Morgan1 and thus is a very strong issue that makes Richards claim invalid and weak. The whole contract has been completed but without the knowledge of the owner, and thus there is no relevance in it. An investigation over a case between Dickinson v Dodds2, makes many things clear. In this case the issue was related to the matter of acceptance of a deal. The case is registeres as DickinsonDodds CA Court of Appeal (1875-76) L.R. 2 Ch. D. 463 01 April 1876 James, L.J. Baggallay, J.A. Mellish, L.J. 1180. It was a case for the Contracts that are the Contract of sale Formation of contract Offer. Added to this there was negligence towards the matter that was core to the fact of acceptance proceedings. According to the terms in the contract the acceptance must get informed for the confirmation of the deal and that was not well followed by Dickinson. As a result the order for the supply gets withdrawn by Dodds. The court of justice was in support of Dodds and the case was in favour of him. The negligence towards to follow up of terms and conditions as has been stated in the statements of contracts were ignored in this case and thus there was no compensation provided. The Legal Issue(s) was ‘Whether the time limit acts solely as an express offer to purchase, or whether Df is free to sell to another in lieu of a formal acceptance?’3 As in this case, it is not legally feasible for a company to pay the builders for a contract that has not been accepted by him, ort rather not informed to be accepted through the recommended mode of acceptance. The matter is very clear about the proceedings for formal acknowledgement for the acceptance of the contract. I can just see one way out for this particular case. Instead of Richard putting up a sued case against HY Associate Ltd. He and his friends better meet the authorities with a letter of apology for the their ignorance. As in this case the HY Associate Ltd. is in need of the seating bank and RAR Builders have compiled the construction, HY Associate Ltd can consider the case and can accept it. However it will be totally a case of consideration nad the whole decision depends on the HY Associate Ltd. RAR Builders are totally at loss and it is only the kind consideration of HY Associate Ltd that can make them stand little erect. In such a situation the idea to sue the company by Richard is a matter of high risk. As this can be solved by few meetings, I prefer that Richard should not take the step. He is of the idea that the court will consider his loss and will grant his share, but legally it is not like that. No matter whatever the investment is, it is totally in the hands of HY Associate Ltd. as RAR Builders were not following the terms and statements of the contract and there is no document regarding the acceptability of the work. They might rather get into the case of fraud if HY Associate Ltd decides to say that. RAR Builders will get the money and HY Associate Ltd has got all the rights to make compensatory deduction. Whatever it may be there is still a scope of negotiating rather than making a mountain of a mole hill. I am sure if RAR Builder gives a letter of apology to HY Associate Ltd. then they will surely consider the situation. References Contract, Offer and Acceptance, Thursday, 10 May 2007, http://iamthelaw1.blogspot.com/2007/05/contract-offer-and-acceptance.html [RETRIEVED ON 04.08.2008] Dickinson v Dodds Court of Appeal, 01 April 1876Subject: Contracts, Keyword(s): Contract of sale; Formation of contract; Offer and acceptance; Specific performance; Withdrawal, Where Reported: (1875-76) L.R. 2 Ch. D. 463, Documents: Case Analysis (1875-76) L.R. 2 Ch. D. 463, http://login.westlaw.co.uk/wluk/app/search/result/retrieve?fulltext=false&vr=1.0&link=true&snippets=true&snippets=true&bchistory=6%3B&td=21&ststate=S&bctocguid=I2BF164441DD211B2BE5256006208F6A5&mdfilter=search-metadata&metadata=true&epos=20&page=1&srguid=ia744cc1b0000011b90a04813b885a046&spos=11&rs=WLUK1.0 [RETRIEVED ON 04.08.2008] Prof Andrew Tettenborn, THE LAW OF CONTRACT, UNIVERSITY OF EXETER SCHOOL OF LAW, 2007 - 2008, http://www.law.ex.ac.uk/staff/tettenborn_teaching.shtml [RETRIEVED ON 04.08.2008] Sam Bie, Dickinson v Dodds, Ct. of App. 1876, http://www.4lawschool.com/contracts/dodds.htm [RETRIEVED ON 04.08.2008] "Sound insulation and testing guide for the UK Building Regulations" , http://www.soundtesting.org/ [RETRIEVED ON 04.08.2008] The Building (Amendment) Regulations 2001 (SI 2001/3335), http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2001/20013335.htm [RETRIEVED ON 04.08.2008] The Building and Approved Inspectors (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/652), http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2006/20060652.htm [RETRIEVED ON 04.08.2008] The LABC Building Control website (E&W), http://www.labc-services.co.uk/ [RETRIEVED ON 04.08.2008] Read More