譚炳瑞 v. 上訴審裁小組(建築物條例)

HCAL 1067/2023

[2023] HKCFI 2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1067 OF 2023

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A.  Introduction

1.  The Applicant acts in person. By a Form 86 and supporting affirmation filed on 30 June 2023, he seeks leave to challenge a decision (“BAT Decision”) dated 25 November 2022, made by the Appeal Tribunal (Buildings) (“BAT”), which confirmed two building orders issued by the Building Authority (“BA”) against the Applicant on 24 September 2020.

2.  The Form 86 acknowledges that the application is made out of time, and seeks leave to be granted notwithstanding. I will deal with this point separately below, under the heading ‘Delay’.

3.  Having considered all the available materials available to the Court, I have come to the view that this application can be dealt with appropriately on paper.

4.  This is my Decision.

B.  The Building Orders

5.  The Applicant is the owner of a flat (“Flat”) in a 60-year old building (“Building”) in the Yau Tsim Mong District. On 24 September 2020, the BA served on the Applicant two building orders requiring him to inspect and repair (if necessary) (a) a structure of the Flat which the BA described as a “balcony”, and (b) the windows installed on the balcony’s parapet wall which in effect encloses the balcony (“Balcony Order” and “Window Order” respectively).

6.  The Applicant appealed against both orders to the BAT, in two separate appeals. On 17 October 2021, the BAT heard both appeals together in a preliminary hearing held under section 49 of Buildings Ordinance Cap 123, to determine whether good cause had been shown for holding a full hearing.

7.  By the BAT Decision made on 25 November 2022, the BAT dismissed both appeals and thereby confirmed the two building orders.

8.  As the matter proceeds in this application to Court, the Applicant’s arguments now concern only the Balcony Order.

9.  The Balcony Order was made by a written notice bearing the number UMB/MB01/1901-170/0011, which required the Applicant, as owner of the Flat, to carry out a prescribed inspection and, if necessary, a prescribed repair of a “projection” which is further particularized as a “balcony”, within 6 months.

10.  The Balcony Order was issued under Part 2A of the Ordinance, which authorizes the BA to order inspection and/or repair of a multi-storey building reaching a certain age. Section 30B permits the BA to order certain inspection or repair for buildings more than 30 years old. Section 30B(5) provides (my emphasis):

Without limiting subsections (3) and (4), the Building Authority may by notice in writing served on the owner of a building require a prescribed inspection and, if necessary, prescribed repair in respect of any projection as prescribed in regulations that is connected to the building and is occupied or used by the owner or any occupier of that premises to be carried out within the specified time.

11.  The meaning of “projection” is further provided for in the Building (Inspection and Repair) Regulation Cap 123P (“BIRR”). Section 9(1) of the BIRR provides:

For the purpose of section 30B(5) of the Ordinance, each of the following is prescribed as a projection –

(a) a balcony;

(b) a verandah;

(c) a planter box;

(d) a drying rack;

(e) a window canopy is described in subsection (2);

(f) any supporting structure for a building service installation (excluding any drainage system);

(g) any pipe or dock that the associated with the building service installation mentioned in paragraph (f).

12.  As will be seen below, the crux of this case is whether what the BA said to be a “balcony” is really a balcony falling within section 9(1) of the BIRR, and thus section 30B(5) of the Ordinance.

C.  The Case before the BAT

13.  I shall refer to what the BA described as a “balcony” of the Flat as the “Disputed Portion” below.

14.  Whilst the Applicant was the appellant in the BAT appeals, I would start with the BA’s position first, for ease of understanding.

C.1  BA’s Argument

15.  The BA’s position was as follows:

(1)  The BA relied on a set of approved plans (“Approved Plans”) of the Building which were last approved by the BA on 1 April 1960. In a floor plan of the 2^nd to the 7^th floors as extracted from the Approved Plans, for flats facing Tai Nan Street (including the Flat), the portion facing Tai Nan Street was marked “Balcony”. The Disputed Portion was not enclosed because the side of the balcony facing Tai Nan Street was only a parapet wall. As shown in the Approved Plans, there were no windows installed above the parapet wall.

(2)  But as shown in the photo taken around 2020, windows had been installed above the parapet wall of the Disputed Portion, leading to the enclosure of that area. Those windows were not in the Approved Plans. They were probably added subsequently (“這些窗戶在批准圖則 [bundle ref] 裏是沒有的，應該是後來加上的”).

(3)  As stated in “Practice Note for Mandatory Building and Window Inspection Schemes” PNBI-6, balconies as prescribed in section 9(1) of the BIRR is a reference to those “unenclosed” structures as shown on the original approved plans of the building. “Unenclosed” balconies and verandahs, which are subsequently enclosed after the building has been occupied, would still be regarded as “unenclosed” structures.

(4)  Thus, the Disputed Portion is a balcony under section 9(1) of BIRR and thus a projection within the meaning of section 30B(5) of the Ordinance.

16.  PNBI-6 contains the BA’s policy statement setting out its understanding on the meaning of “balcony” in section 9(1) of the BIRR. On a literal reading, it seems that whether a structure is or is not a balcony turns on whether it is an enclosed structure as marked on the approved plans. Applying PNBI-6 strictly, it does not matter even if the structure is differently constructed from the approved plans – say, as “enclosed” rather than “unenclosed” – from the very beginning. That is because it is what is stated in the approved plans, rather than the actual physical structure at any point in time, which is determinative. But clearly the BA was also of the view that when the Flat was first constructed decades ago, it was constructed in compliance with the Approved Plans.

C.2  Applicant’s Argument

17.  In essence, the Applicant’s argument was that:

(1)  the Disputed Portion of his Flat was not designed as a balcony from the beginning, and had never been constructed as such.

(2)  The actual situation of his Flat as of 2020 had retained the original design of the Building when constructed decades ago.

(3)  The Disputed Portion had already been enclosed by windows when his Grandfather purchased the Flat. Therefore, there has never been a balcony in his Flat.

(4)  His Grandfather purchased the Flat and the Applicant had been living there since a young age. To his knowledge, there had never been a balcony in the Flat. Nor was there any projection. He had already removed all projections years ago.

(5)  Whilst not expressly stated, the Disputed Portion is not a balcony, but an integral part of the internal or indoor space of his Flat. That area had always been enclosed with windows when his Grandfather purchased it. His family did not install those windows.

(6)  Many flats in the Building have a similar area enclosed by windows installed upon a parapet wall. This suggests that such structures must have been designed and built by the developer of the Building as such.

(7)  To suggest otherwise – that all flat owners of the Building would somehow enclose their balconies by similar method in breach of the regulations – is absurd. If the windows on the parapet wall of each flat were put in place by each individual owner, the windows should show irregular or different styles across different flats. Yet, they are uniform in design or style.

(8)  It is wrong for the BA to rely on the Approved Plans. The Approved Plans were made some 60 years ago. The BA could not be sure that their former staff did not make mistakes or that they had made the appropriate updates.

(9)  When asked by the BAT what the structure was, if it was not a balcony, the applicant said it was a “騎樓”. It seems that it was not further explored in the hearing, at least as reflected in the BAT Decision, what is meant by that phrase. (I note that “騎樓” is not to be found in the Ordinance or its subsidiary legislation, but it is commonly translated as “verandah” or “balcony”.)

C.3  The Dispute

18.  The following observations could be made regarding the Applicant’s arguments:

(1)  He did not expressly identify what he thought should be considered a balcony under section 9(1) of the BIRR.

(2)  But it does not appear that he would agree with BA’s position, in reliance of the PNBI-6, that whether the Disputed Portion is or is not a “balcony” thus made subject to section 30B(5) should be determined by reference to the Approved Plans.

(3)  He said the Approved Plans are “incorrect” or “wrong”, in that they failed to show the original design and construction of this Flat decades ago.

(4)  Further, he does not think that a building should be constructed according to approved plans, but rather the approved plans should reflect the actual initial structure of a building.

(5)  When the approved plans differ from the actual initial structure, the approved plans are “incorrect” in failing to show the actual initial physical structure rather than, say, that the building was constructed without approval or constructed in breach of the permission given.

(6)  Whether a structure is or is not a balcony shall be determined by reference to the actual physical structure when it was initially constructed, rather than by reference to the approved plans.

(7)  Whilst the positions of the BA and of the applicant regarding the meaning of “balcony” under section 9(1) of BIRR did not seem to coincide, the Applicant would apparently agree that if his Flat was originally designed and constructed in the way as shown in the Approved Plans (which position was taken by the BA), the Disputed Portion would be considered a balcony.

(8)  This explains his strong emphasis on the point that the Flat had never been altered since his Grandfather purchased it, as well as his attempt to infer from the uniformity in design across flats that the current design must have been the original design.

19.  Viewing it in this light, it seems to me that the parties’ dispute before the BAT was a factual one. The BA said the Flat was designed and constructed decades ago as shown in the Approved Plans. The Applicant said the Approved Plans did not reflect how the Flat was constructed initially. Rather, he said, the structure of his Flat and the Disputed Portion had maintained their shape throughout the decades.

C.4  The Plans/Photos

20.  Before leaving the contest as it was ventilated before the BAT, I might usefully comment on the floor plan and photo which has been provided.

21.  The 2^nd to 7^th Floor Plan – i.e. part of the Approved Plans – seems to me to be perfectly clear. It identifies each domestic flat (such as the Flat) as having French windows installed, separating an internal – or enclosed – area of the Flat from an external – or unenclosed – area up to the outer wall (which has been described by the parties as the parapet wall). Across the width of the building the word “BALCONY” is written on that apparently external area. There is also a dotted line marked on the plan labelled with ‘7^th FL BALC LINE”, indicating that the top of the 7^th floor balcony area is slightly in from the parapet wall of that floor.

22.  It would also seem to me from the plan that the internal walls dividing one flat from another internally are wider/thicker than the continuation of that wall onto the external area (though any structural effect of that is not made clear by the plan). There is also a short wall at right angles to the dividing walls, at the point where the difference in thickness occurs. That right angled wall appears on alternate dividing walls, meaning that each flat has one side where the demarcation between external and internal area is marked.

23.  As to the photo apparently taken on 4 February 2020, I do not think it identifies the uniformity of windows quite in the way described by the Applicant, though it may indeed be said that the windows are broadly similar. The obviously different positioning of air-conditioning units may not be helpful to the analysis.

D.  The BAT Decision

24.  The BAT rejected the Applicant’s appeal. The relevant paragraphs of the analysis are reproduced below (original in Chinese):

30. For the purpose of section 30B(5), section 9(1) of the Building (Inspection and Repair) Regulation prescribes balcony as a projection.

31. According to the “Practice Note for Mandatory Building and Window Inspection Schemes” PNBI-6, balconies as prescribed in section 9(1) of the Building (Inspection and Repair) Regulation refers to those “unenclosed” structures as shown on the original approved plans of the building. “Unenclosed” balconies and verandahs which are subsequently enclosed after the building has been occupied would still be regarded as “unenclosed” structures.

32. The phrase “any projection” in section 30B(5) covers all balconies of the premises, whether originally existed, subsequently added or altered after the premises has been occupied, or whether in conformation with the design as shown in the approved plan.

34. When the appellant was asked, if there were no windows on the parapet wall at the front facing Tai Nan Street, would he consider that that structure or that area not a balcony, he insisted that the structure still could not be considered a balcony in that circumstances.

35. The plan last approved by the BA dated 1 April 1960 …is clearly marked with the word “BALCONY”. This shows that the building’s front facing Tai Nan Street was designed as balconies, and as unenclosed structure projected onto Tai Nan Street.

36. As shown in [another plan], for the balconies on the 2^nd to the 8^th floor, the front facing Tai Nan Street was designed as parapet wall and there were no windows installed upon the parapet wall.

37. If one removes all the windows on the 2^nd to the 8^th floors, it can be clearly seen that the all the flats on the 2^nd to 8^th floors have balconies, which is consistent with the plan as described in paragraph 36 above.

38. As shown in photo [349/11], on the front facing Tai Nan Street, the 2^nd to the 8^th floors all project onto Tai Nan Street. At the hearing, the appellant said that the part of the building projected onto Tai Nan Street is “騎樓”. The pedestrian pavement is beneath the “騎樓”.

39. The BAT unanimously ruled that that area is a balcony, either by design or by reference to the actual situation (parapet wall with windows installed on it), and thus falling within the definition of projection.

30. 為施行本條例第30B(5)條，《建築物(檢驗及修葺)規例》第9(1)條將 “露台” 訂明為伸出物。

31. 根據《強制驗樓及驗窗計劃作業備考》PNBI-6《建築物(檢驗及修葺)規例》第9(1)條訂明的露台，是指在有關樓宇的原批准圖則上已示為 “沒有圍封” 的構築物; 即使這些沒有圍封的露台及外廊於入伙後被圍封，仍會被視為 “沒有圍封” 的構築物。

32. 該條條例第30B(5)條所指的 “任何伸出物”涵蓋該處所所有露台，不諭是否原有﹑新增或經改動的露台或者是有否與批准則所示的設計不同。

34. 當被問及如果該處所面向大南街的矮牆上沒有窗戶，上訴人是否會覺得那是一個露台。上訴人堅稱在這情況下仍然不算是一個露台。

35. 屋宇署在1960年4月1日最後批准的圖則[349/62]…清楚寫上“BALCONY”字樣。可見該處大廈面向大南街方向的是露台設計，並同被設計為一沒有圍封的建築物住宅部分延伸大南街之上。

36. 從第 [349/67]…的圖則(Section A-A)可見該大廈由2樓到8樓面向大南街方向的露台是矮牆設計，並且矮牆上是沒有窗戶的。

37. 如果該大廈由2至8樓的窗門全部拆去，明顯可見由2至8樓都是有露台，與上文第36段所述的圖則相符。

38. 從相片[349/11]可見向大南街的那一面，2-8樓都是向大南街延伸至行人路之上，在聆訊作供的時候上訴人稱2樓伸出大南街的部分為“騎樓”, “騎樓” 的下面是行人路。

39. 小組一致裁定該部分不論是設計上或實際情況 (矮牆加上窗戶[349/11])都是一個露台，符合該條例伸出物的定義。

25.  The BAT did not exactly adopt either party’s position as to what should be considered a balcony in section 9(1) of the BIRR:

(1)  Whilst the BAT quoted from PNBI-6 (at §31), its understanding at §32 is apparently much wider than PBNI-6.

(2)  The BAT seemed to agree that in terms of physical structure, a balcony is “unenclosed”. Thus its recorded dismay at the applicant’s insistence that the Disputed Portion would still not be a balcony even if the windows on the parapet wall were to be removed.

(3)  The BAT would include within section 30B(5) balconies which do not exist in the approved plans but which are only subsequently constructed without authorization.

(4)  It would also include structures which were originally designed and constructed as balcony (unenclosed) but were later altered to become enclosed structures, with or without permission from the BA.

(5)  Whilst not expressly stated, it is more than tolerably clear that the BAT was of the view that the initial design and construction of the Flat and the Disputed Portion were indeed built in conformation with the Approved Plans as an unenclosed structure, and that the windows on the parapet wall were subsequently added (whether by the Applicant or his family or a previous owner) to turn that area into an enclosed structure.

(6)  Applying its understanding of the meaning of balcony, the BAT came to the conclusion at §39 that the Disputed Portion is a balcony in terms of both design and the actual situation (enclosed by installing windows on the parapet wall).

E.  Proposed Grounds of Review

26.  The Applicant’s complaints arise from the BAT’s determination that the Disputed Portion is indeed a balcony. I think the complaints stated in his affirmation filed in support of this leave application could be summarized as below:

(1)  The Tribunal had misinterpreted or twisted his words in §17(b) of the BAT Decision, which reads “The appellant said the FRENCH WINDOWS as referred to in the Floor Plan no longer exist” (“上訴人說圖則提及的FRENCH WINDOWS已經不存在。”)

(2)  He had never said such thing. What he said was that he changed the metal window frame in his Flat to aluminium frame in the 90s. He had thrown away the metal window frame and thus they no longer existed. The tribunal members twisted his words.

(3)  He heard about the phrase “French Windows” for the first time in the BAT Decision. Before that, he only remembered seeing “Frinch Windows” (sic) as shown in one of the plans attached to the notice served on him. He did not know what “Frinch Windows” were. It is only after he had received the BAT Decision that he made a search online and came to know that the phrase “French Windows” refers to “windows extending to the floor” (“落地玻璃”)

(4)  There has never been such French Windows inside his Flat. Since the Flat was purchased by his Grandfather, no alternation had been made to the Flat. He Grandfather was the only adult male in his family back then. He was old, fragile and bedridden at the time. He passed away two years after he purchased the Flat. It is unreasonable to suggest that his Grandfather had removed the French Windows and installed the windows on the parapet. If such alteration had been made in the Flat, he would have known.

(5)  The Floor Plan could not be right: (a) the plan shows French Windows installed deep inside to the indoor area of the Flat, which is very different from the actual situation of his Flat; (b) the Building is in old tenements building, which is unlikely to be installed with windows extending to the floor; (c) if flats in his Building were designed with balconies, maybe some of them would install windows on the parapet wall but it is unreasonable to suggest that all the owners would install such windows; and (d) as he said in the hearing, he had never altered the internal structure of the Flat. The reasonable inference is that the Flat as it is now (with windows on the parapet wall) is the original design.

(6)  The relevant part is not a balcony or a projection. Before 1995, he was ordered by the Building Department to remove all projections from the external wall of his Flat, such as laundry drying rack, planters, etc., and he had done so. At that time, he was never told to remove a balcony. This indicates that there was no such projection as a balcony from his Flat.

(7)  According to the guidelines issued by the Building Department, all projections share some features: (a) they are all outdoors, extending from the external wall of the flat; (b) the structure or object has one side attached to the external wall but the other three sides are not connected to anything; and (c) for balconies, they could have two or three sides not connected to other building structures.

(8)  The French Windows being the external wall from which the BA said the “balcony” was extended never existed. The area identified by the BA as a balcony or as a projection does not fit in the definition of projections as provided in the BA’s guidelines.

(9)  It cannot be said that once a part of the building projects over the pedestrian pavement, then there is a balcony. Looking from another angle, the Building was rectangular in shape. What was done is that the area of the Building at the ground level was scaled down, in order to make a pedestrian pavement so that pedestrians would not have to walk on the carriageway. It cannot be said that the portion of the upper floor storeys above the pedestrian pavement are balconies.

(10)  When the Floor Plan does not match the actual Building (or his Flat), it is wrong to assume that the Floor Plan must be right.

F.  Any Merit in the Proposed Challenge?

27.  What the Applicant said in the affirmation in support of this leave application is mostly a re-run of the arguments he already made before the BAT, albeit with a little expansion. He sought to reinforce his point that the Flat and the Disputed Portion could not have been originally constructed according to the Approved Plans.

28.  The judicial review court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, could not substitute its own view in place of that of the BAT. The BAT has obviously made the factual finding that the Flat and the Disputed Portion was both designed and constructed decades ago in the way as shown in the Approved Plans. The BA’s version was accepted, and the Applicant’s contrary version was not accepted.

29.  The only conceivable conventional judicial review ground which could be launched against such a factual finding is what is usually called an irrationality challenge. Irrationality is a high threshold, and I think the BAT’s factual finding, based on the evidence given by the BA and the Applicant, could not be criticized as being irrational. It is not, as seemed to be suggested by the Applicant, hard to accept that the Building was initially built as per the Approved Plans and that flat owners subsequently altered the balconies by installing windows to enclose them. Indeed, this is a common occurrence in Hong Kong.

30.  The submissions that all projections share the features of extending from an external wall as per the PNBI-6 and that the Disputed Portion had no external wall to extend from is a new argument which I do not entertain. The argument was also premised on the presumption that there had never been French Windows installed inside his Flat as per the design shown in the Approved Plans. But I have already accepted that there is no public law basis for interfering with the BAT’s finding that the Flat was initially constructed according to the Approved Plans.

31.  As to the submissions that a structure on an upper storey should not be treated as a balcony simply because it projects over or extends onto the pedestrian pavement below, that was not really how the battle lines were drawn before the BAT. Insofar as physical structure is concerned, I note that both parties and the BAT seemed to have focused on whether the structure was unenclosed or enclosed. The BAT did not reach its conclusion that the Disputed Portion is a balcony on the basis that it extends onto or projects over the pedestrian pavement below. I do not think that this argument on the meaning of balcony, freshly raised in this leave application, should be entertained.

32.  Whilst not strictly necessary, I would also note that “balcony” is defined in Building (Planning) Regulations Cap 123F (“BPR”) as “any structure projecting from any wall of any building to carry a floor or roof load either cantilevered or supported by brackets”. Thus, if a structure (being a floor in the present case) from a building projects over onto the pedestrian pavement (so that there is no building part beneath it to support that structure, so that it has to be supported by cantilever or bracket), it will fall within the meaning of balcony in the BPR.

33.  The only other point which is a real attack directed at the BAT Decision is the argument that the BAT, at §17 of the BAT Decision, had misquoted or twisted what he said in the hearing, in that he had never said that the “French Windows” in his Flat no longer existed. §17(b) reads “the appellant said the “French Windows” referred to in the plans no longer exist” (上訴人說圖則提及的French Windows已經不存在。) That comment was made in the context of summarizing the applicant’s arguments against the Windows Order.

34.  I am not provided with the transcripts of the BAT hearing and therefore could not determine if the Applicant was misquoted. The reference in §17(b) is the only reference to “French Windows” made by the BAT, and no particular significance seems to be drawn what is said in §17(b). In any event, whether the Applicant had conceded that French Windows originally existed in the Flat does not seem to have been any part of the BAT Decision or its reasoning, nor did it play any material role in the BAT’s finding on the original structure of the Flat or the Disputed Portion. Any error made in that context seems to me to be inconsequential in this intended public law challenge, and would not justify the Court’s intervention, even if the BAT did misquote the Applicant.

35.  More important, of course, was that the BAT could see for itself that the Approved Plan clearly identified a division between an internal (enclosed) area and an external (unenclosed) area, the division marked by the small portion of wall at a right angle, and French windows across the gap between that small portion of wall and the other internal wall of the flats. A French window is simply a glass/window door which affords access from an internal area to an external area.

36.  Finally, though made in the context of relief, the Applicant insinuated that the BAT members had an improper relationship with the BA staff responsible for the case. He observed that on the day of the hearing, the four BAT members and the staff from the BA were already in the hearing room before he came in. When the Applicant left after the conclusion of the hearing, he noted that the BA staff did not show any sign of leaving. The Applicant seemed to suggest that the BA staff were to stay to further discuss the case with the BAT members, even though the hearing had been concluded. He said he has lost confidence in the BAT and doubts if the BAT had acted or would be able to act fairly. It suffices to say that the none of the observations raised by the Applicant could support any allegation of improper relationship between the BAT and the BA.

37.  Overall, what is stated in the supporting affirmation does not disclose any reasonably arguable public law error with a reasonable prospect of success. That is determinative of the application.

G.  Delay

38.  The BAT Decision was made on 25 November 2022. The ‘long stop’ three-month deadline provided for in Order 53 expired in late February 2023. The Form 86 was filed on 30 June 2023. Therefore, the application was filed about 4 months late.

39.  The Applicant said that, upon receiving the decision, he requested the BAT to amend two points: (a) to amend the hearing date which was erroneously recorded as held in 2017 when it was held in 2021; and (b) to amend the costs order made against him on the basis that it was excessive. The BAT only replied to his request by letter dated 2 June 2023, which he received only on 6 June 2023. The BAT corrected the hearing date and refused to act on the other request.

40.  The Applicant said he initially misunderstood that time would start running from 2 June 2023. He also misunderstood that the period within which he must apply for leave for judicial review is 28 days. Thus, he worked on the presumption that the deadline for him to make the current application would be 30 June 2023. From 2 June 2023 to 30 June 2023 he had asked around for a (free) legal consultation service which was eventually offered to him by the Home Affairs Department on 28 July 2023. He filed the Form 86 on the same day.

41.  If what the Applicant said was true, he must have, on the same day as he filed the Form 86, discovered that the correct period within which he must make the current application would be 3 months from the date of the BAT Decision. Because, such realization was also recorded in his supporting affirmation, also filed on 30 June 2023.

42.  It is well established that when deciding whether to extend time, the Court would look at (a) the length of the delay, (b) the reason for the delay, (c) merits of the application and (d) prejudice to the opposing party. I would refuse to grant any extension of time for the following reasons:

(1)  The delay is 4 months, which is not insubstantial.

(2)  I do not see much force in the reasons offered by the Applicant. The typographical error as to the date of the hearing which was insignificant, though I accept that the costs order might be seen to be consequent on the result of the appeal. However, it was not the duty of the BAT to advise him on the procedure or the deadline to lodge a possible judicial review. Whilst the applicant acts in person, ignorance of the law per se is not a good reason for failing to observe the statutory deadline.

(3)  I have already explained why I think there is no merit in any of the proposed grounds. There is little if any point in extending time to bring an application which has no merit.

(4)  The delay is prejudicial to the BA. The Balcony Order was made on 20 September 2020, with a deadline of compliance set at 30 March 2021. It would certainly be in the interest of the BA (and of the public) to bring these proceedings to an end and to take further steps to enforce the order if necessary.

H.  Result

43.  The application is dismissed, with no order as to costs.