The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) advises adhering to existing roof garden guidelines, countering recent tribunal results.
- A tribunal ruling contradicted existing governmental advice, questioning the classification of high-risk buildings concerning rooftop gardens.
- Leaseholder disputes in Hackney Wick raised safety issues, prompting judicial and governmental scrutiny of current building classifications.
- Judge Mark Martynski’s verdict expanded what constitutes a building storey, affecting safety rule applicability.
- The MHCLG is examining tribunal perspectives, underscoring that existing guidelines hold until further notice.
In a nuanced development, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) has reiterated the importance of maintaining existing guidelines concerning roof gardens. This comes despite recent tribunal rulings that challenged established protocols, particularly in the classification of high-risk buildings. The government’s firm stance aims to provide clarity amidst legal interpretations that differ significantly from policy.
The tribunal case centred on a leaseholder dispute in Hackney Wick, where the occupant sought more extensive safety measures than the landlord was prepared to undertake. The case underscored the complexities involved in building safety classifications under the current Building Safety Act, especially when determining if a building qualifies as a higher-risk building (HRB). The building in question, Smoke House and Curing House, includes ground-floor commercial ventures and residential floors topped with roof gardens, presenting unique challenges in applying safety legislation.
Judge Mark Martynski’s decision to classify the building as higher-risk hinged on his interpretation of what constitutes a storey. His criticism pointed towards the contradictions found in secondary legislation which, until then, excluded rooftop gardens from being counted as a storey. By interpreting them as a storey, Martynski effectively broadened the criteria, which could impose additional safety requirements and potential costs on developers and managers who had previously omitted such rooftop structures from their risk assessments.
While the MHCLG acknowledges the tribunal’s perspective, it emphasises that the tribunal itself recognised its limited jurisdiction in definitively classifying the building as high-risk. Until an authoritative decision is made, the current guidelines remain the reference point for regulators and industry practitioners alike. This interim adherence to existing protocols is necessary to avoid confusion and ensure safety standards are consistently met.
Legal voices, including Hassan Dervish from Duncan Lewis Solicitors, have noted the significant precedents set by this ruling. By classifying rooftop gardens as contributing to a building’s risk profile, there is an implication of increased regulatory burdens, which councils might contest further in higher courts. His insights reveal the intricate balance between evolving legal interpretations and the pragmatic application of building safety laws.
In conclusion, while the tribunal ruling presents new interpretations, current government guidelines on roof gardens remain unchanged pending further assessment.
