Citation : LAMONT -v- TOWN OF KWINANA [2013] WASC 326

Statutory construction - Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 (WA) s 374(1) - Failure to apply for building licence - Meaning of 'alter' - Meaning of 'structure' - Whether building works altered the structure of a building - Ordinary meaning - Need to consider facts and circumstances of the particular case - Subordinate legislation impermissible aid to construction of statute

Building Act 2011 (WA), s 3, s 9, s 66, s 67, s 153

Building Regulations 1989 (WA), r 11, pt 6, sch 4

Building Regulations 2012 (WA), pt 6, sch 4

Health Act 1911 (WA), s 139

Local Government Act 1995 (WA)

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 (WA), s 373(4), s 374, s 374A, s 374B, s 374AA, s 374AAD, s 375, s 378, s 379, s 399(4), s 401, s 401A, s 403(4), s 404, s 408(1), s 433, pt XV

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 87 ALJR 98

Lamont v Town of Kwinana [2013] WASC 326

Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355

Thiess v Collector of Customs [2014] HCA 12

W Thomas & Co Pty Ltd v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [1965] HCA 54; (1965) 115 CLR 58

1. This appeal concerns, principally, the proper construction and application of s 374(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 (WA) (the Act).
2. Section 374(1) of the Act provides:

(a) lay out for building, or commence or proceed with a building on, land in a district; or

(b) in respect of the structure of a building already erected on land in a district, amend, alter, extend, or enlarge, or commence or proceed with the amendment, alteration, extension, or enlargement of the structure of the building,

until he has caused to be submitted to the local government, and the local government has approved by the issue to the person of a building licence in the prescribed form and on payment of the prescribed fee, a copy of the specifications of, and a plan showing clearly, the building or the buildings proposed to be built, or the amendment, alteration, extension, or enlargement proposed to be made, as the case may be, and the area of land to be occupied by each building, or by the amendment, alteration, extension or enlargement of the existing buildings, as the case may be, and the position of the privies and drains and unless he complies with the conditions, if any, that are specified in the licence.

Penalty: $50 000 and in addition a daily penalty of $5 000 for each day during which the offence continues. (emphasis added)

1. In broad terms, the respondent carried out certain work on a home in Medina, within the Town of Kwinana (the Town), between late October and early December 2010. The Town alleged that by doing the work the respondent contravened s 374(1)(b) in that he had proceeded with the alteration of the structure of the building without necessary approval. The Town also issued a notice requiring the respondent to stop the work in purported pursuance of s 401A of the Act. Section 401A(1), (5) and (7) of the Act provides:

(1) Where, in contravention of this Act, a building is being constructed, erected, adapted, amended, enlarged, added to, repaired or taken down, the local government may, by notice in writing served on the builder, order the builder to stop all work specified in the notice as being done in contravention of this Act.

...

(5) A person who -

(a) has been served with a notice under this section or knows that a notice under this section is in force; and

(b) causes or suffers work to be done in contravention of the notice,

builder means the person who is employed to build, or to execute work on, a building, or, where no person is so employed, the owner of the building. (emphasis added)

1. The Town prosecuted the respondent for alleged contraventions of s 374(1) and s 401A of the Act and the respondent was convicted of both offences in October 2012 by a magistrate. The charge with respect to s 374 read:

In respect of the structure of a building already erected on land within the district of the Town of Kwinana proceeded with the alteration of the structure of the building without having caused to be submitted to the Town of Kwinana and the Town having approved by the issue of a building licence in the prescribed form and on payment of the prescribed fee a copy of the specifications of and a plan showing clearly the alteration proposed to be made, contrary to Section 374(1)(b) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1960 (RO 9637/10). (emphasis added)

1. The respondent appealed his conviction to the learned primary judge. The primary judge noted that the appeal before him involved 37 grounds of appeal as well as various 'grounds' in the form of annotations to the learned magistrate's decision. It is evident that the learned primary judge was not provided with any substantive assistance in addressing the appeal by the respondent. The learned primary judge allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions on the basis that it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the work constituted an alteration of the structure of the building within the meaning of s 374(1)(b) of the Act.
2. The Town appeals against the decision of the primary judge. (On 3 November 2013 Mazza JA granted leave to appeal.)
3. The issues raised in this appeal do not concern the construction and operation of the Building Act 2011 (WA) (2011 Act). As indicated later in these reasons, that successor statute involves a substantially different regime from the regime under pt XV of the Act, with which this appeal is concerned.

1. (References below are references to the primary judge's reasons unless otherwise indicated: Lamont v Town of Kwinana [2013] WASC 326).
2. The house in question was an older house with a tiled roof, timber floor, roof frame construction, timber floors clad with asbestos, external cladding, probably some asbestos inside with gyprock walls and plasterboard walling (magistrate's reasons BB 26).
3. It had been inhabited by a 95-year-old woman until May 2010, when it was declared unfit for human habitation by the Town. It was 'falling down' [1] - [2].
4. The magistrate found (magistrate's reasons BB 26 - 27) in effect that:

(a) there was a sunken section of the roof where the roof had collapsed;

(b) the roof collapse meant that all the load from the roof had been put through to the external wall and had pushed the external wall out, with the result that the wall and the roof were not in alignment;

(c) in this regard, the southern wall had been 'pivoted out from the base so it [was not in] position';

(d) the collapse of the roof and the pushing out of the southern wall had created a major structural problem to the house, and the roof structure was 'certainly dangerous'; and

(e) the roof structure was not structurally adequate to take the complete roof load without collar ties being in place.

1. In relation to the works carried out by the respondent, as the primary judge observed [47]:

'[T]hat the uncontroverted evidence ... is that the building works to the roof and the southern wall of the dwelling were being carried out between 19 October 2010 and 1 December 2010, including the installation of new ridge beams, new tile batten, new struts, new collar ties, as well as new brackets, screws to the roof structure and the realignment and recladding of the southern wall (ts 9/10/12, page 8).'

1. It was not in dispute in this appeal that:
   • ridge beams are the timber beams running along the apex of a pitched roof;
   • tile battens are timber battens which are fixed at regular intervals to the rafters in a pitched roof to enable the tiles to be properly placed and secured;
   • struts are vertical pieces of timber which are used to provide support to a pitched roof; and
   • collar ties are timber beams attached to the rafters at each end in a pitched roof to provide support for the pitched roof and to stop it spreading.
2. It was also common ground that the works included additional collar ties and struts which went beyond those which had been in the original roof (appeal ts 49 - 50).
3. As the primary judge also observed at [18], the magistrate also said:

Clearly the property was being altered. It was not simply a case of replacing like for like. The property was in a considerable state of disrepair and dangerous. There was a need to restore the building by altering it to its pre-damaged state, and that in my view, is within the definition of 'alter'. Here the southern wall of the building formed part of the structure of the dwelling. The southern wall was altered by it being realigned and reattached to the roof structure and by having new exterior cladding affixed to it, and that again is demonstrated by the photographs, exhibits that have been referred to (ts 23/10/12, pages 9 - 10).

The judge's reasoning in overturning the magistrate's decision

1. As to the preceding finding by the magistrate, the judge said:

The issue however is more nuanced than simply describing the work as an 'alteration' and thus within s 374B.

It does not appear that the magistrate had the advantage of detailed submissions as to the meaning of the word 'repair' and the difference between 'repair' and 'alter'. Certainly I had no such assistance. Nevertheless, there are many authorities on the issue. The authorities establish that there is a difference between alteration and repair as legal concepts.

The error made by the magistrate was to assume that restoring a building to a pre-damaged state may be classified an alteration. In the context of the LG(MP) Act a repair is not an alteration that requires building approval [19] - [21].

1. His Honour also said that s 374(1)(b) 'does not necessarily require "repair" to precisely equate with "alter" so as to require that in every case of repair, building approval is required' [44].
2. The judge found that '[t]he requirement for a building licence under s 374 is principally a planning measure rather than a building supervision measure' [36]. Nevertheless, his Honour also found that '[t]he power over the construction of buildings which tend to render the building unsafe or dangerous is in s 374(1)(b)' [37].
3. The primary judge also referred to the Town's notice, purportedly under s 401A, which referred to the respondent's works as being 'repair' works. The judge said:

The notice being an acknowledgement by the prosecution that the work was repair work, the magistrate erred in failing to consider as a matter of fact and degree whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the work being undertaken was an alteration requiring building approval. In the light of the First Schedule and the evidence of the Kwinana building surveyors and photographs tendered as exhibits, it could not be safely concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the works were an alteration within LG(MP) Act s 374. There is at least a reasonable doubt that the works may have been repair works not requiring a building approval [48].

1. There are two grounds of appeal. The first concerns the proper construction and application of s 374(1)(b) of the Act. The second concerns the application of s 401A of the Act. Success on the second ground of appeal depends upon the Town establishing the first ground. The only complaint in relation to the application of s 401A is that the judge should have found that there was a contravention of the Act by reason of the alleged contravention of s 374(1)(b). Accordingly, the disposition of the appeal depends upon success in the first ground of appeal.
2. By its first ground of appeal, the Town alleged that the judge erred in construing and applying s 374(1)(b) of the Act. In this regard, the Town alleged, in effect, that:

(1) the judge erred in finding that it was necessary to distinguish between 'repair' and 'alteration' for the purpose of s 374(1)(b) and that he should have found that every repair to a building constitutes an alteration to a building and that where an alteration is made to the structure of a building, a building licence is required;

(2) the judge erred in finding that a repair which constitutes the restoration of a damaged building to its pre-damaged state is not an alteration of the building within the meaning of s 374(1)(b), whereas he should have found that where a repair to a building constitutes an alteration to the structure of the building, a building licence is required under s 374(1)(b); and

(3) for the purposes of s 374(1)(b), in order to determine whether the structure of the building has been altered it is necessary to compare the structure of the building immediately prior to the works carried out with the structure of the building after the works have been carried out.

1. The Town contended, in effect, that:
   • the word 'alter' should be given its natural and ordinary meaning and that the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed, 1944) defined it to mean 'to make otherwise or different in some respect, without changing the thing itself; to modify';
   • the repair of damage to the structure of the wall or roof of a building 'by changing or replacing structural elements' of the wall or roof is an 'alteration' under s 374(1)(b) of the Act;
   • regard may be had to reg 11 of the Building Regulations 1989 (WA) to show that the purpose or intent of s 374(1) of the Act (and reg 11) 'was to ensure new buildings were designed so as to be structurally sound and comply with the provisions of the Building Code ... and that any alterations to the structure of an existing building were also designed to be structurally sound and comply with the provisions of the Code'.
   • section 374(1) of the Act operates in the same way as the provisions now in force under s 9 of the 2011 Act, and that, in effect, the meaning of s 374(1) of the Act could be ascertained by reference to the language and operation of the latter statute;
   • the building work undertaken by the respondent involved 'replacement of structural elements of the roof of the Building' and the roof structure was thereby altered in that tiles, steel angle and tek screws had been used to attach rafters to the new ridge beam, metal brackets and tek screws had been used to attach structural timbers together, additional struts and collar ties had been installed, the 'bird's mouths' in the rafters of the roof did not line up with the top of the framing of the southern wall, and the structure of the southern wall was altered in that it was realigned to a vertical alignment but still contained bowing because the 'bird's mouths' in the roofing rafters were not sitting on top of and attached to the wall plate at the top of the wall framing of the southern wall;
   • even if the restoration of the building to its pre-damaged state did not require a building licence under s 374(1)(b) of the Act properly construed, a building licence was required in this instance because the building was not restored to its pre-damaged state; and
   • in order properly to determine whether the structure of a building has been altered, it is necessary to compare the structure of the building immediately prior to any works commencing with the structure of the building after the works had been carried out.
2. The respondent's arguments included arguments which may be summarised to the effect that:
   • other provisions in the Act, unlike s 374(1)(b) made express mention of 'repair';
   • similarly, in the Building Regulations there is a distinction drawn between 'repair' and 'alteration' and this indicates that s 374(1)(b) is not addressing repair work;
   • the Town's submissions conflate the 'structure' to which s 374(1)(b) refers with 'structural repairs', and are tantamount to submissions that the structure of the building is altered where parts of the building are 'molecularly' changed;
   • the judge found that the repair work in question in this case had not been shown to constitute an 'alteration' within the meaning of s 374(1)(b);
   • any works, such as the installation of additional collar ties and struts in this case, which are added to give the structure additional strength, cannot be alterations under s 374(1)(b) because there can be no law against making a structure safer or stronger;
   • section 374(1)(b) requires a comparison between the property as approved under the original licence, with its position after the works have been undertaken, in order to determine whether an 'alteration' has taken place within the meaning of s 374(1)(b); and
   • the reference to 'specifications' in s 374(1) refers to the specifications originally approved by the local government when the building was erected and not the specifications which are required if the provisions of s 374(1)(a) or (b) are triggered.
3. In relation to the third contention above, the respondent, by his written submissions, contended that:

In certain extreme cases of very extensive renew and replacement it could be argued that an alteration occurred (BB 23).

1. Section 2 of the Act provides that the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (the 1995 Act) applies as if the provisions of the Act were in the 1995 Act, but in construing the provisions of the Act, account is to be taken of the meanings they had before the 1995 Act commenced. (In this regard, by s 6 of the Local Government Act 1960 - 1982 (WA), 'building' was defined to include a fence.)
2. Part XV of the Act is headed 'Buildings'. In addition to s 374(1), pt XV includes the following provisions.
3. Section 373(4) provides that subject to certain exceptions (irrelevant for present purposes), the provisions of pt XV apply to a building notwithstanding that its roof or covering has been removed or has fallen in, or that the building has not been completed or, having been completed, part of it has been wholly or partly demolished, removed or become ruinous, or that the building is a building of the type that does not have a roof or covering.
4. Division 1A of pt XV deals with the qualifications and appointment of persons to the office of 'building surveyors' of a local government.
5. Division 2 contains s 374. Section 374(1) has been set out earlier.
6. Section 374(1a) provides that a building licence may be issued subject to conditions. Section 374(1b) - (2) address matters concerning the application for a building licence and the submission of specifications, plans and the requirement to give notice of the completion of the work. Section 374(1b) provides, in effect, that a local government may reject an application under s 374(1b) for the amendment, alteration, extension or enlargement of an existing building if the local government has reason to believe that there is something in the construction of the building which would give the local government grounds for issuing a notice under s 401(1). Section 401 is referred to in [39] below.
7. Section 374(3), in general terms, provides that a person who, having contravened s 374(1), occupies or uses the building or a part of the building before the relevant plans and specifications have been approved commits an offence. Section 374(4) provides that it is a defence to an offence under s 374(3) if the person proves that prior to the occupation or use, a 'building approval certificate' for the work done in contravention of s 374(1) had been obtained. As noted below, a 'building approval certificate', issued under s 374AA, operates, in effect, as a retrospective approval for the work.
8. Section 374AA deals with work involving the erection or 'amendment, alteration, extension or enlargement of the structure of a building' which has not been approved by the local government. In this regard, s 374AA(1), (2), (4) and (5) provide:

unauthorised building work means the erection of a building or the amendment, alteration, extension or enlargement of the structure of a building -

(a) which is carried out without the permission of the local government where that permission is required; or

(b) which is not in compliance with, or is a departure from, plans and specifications for the building that have been approved by the local government under section 374(1).

(2) The owner of a building on which unauthorised building work has been carried out may apply to the local government for the issue of a building approval certificate in respect of the unauthorised building work.

...

(4) The local government -

(a) may, if it is satisfied that the unauthorised building work substantially conforms with the requirements of this Act, issue a building approval certificate in respect of the unauthorised building work; or

(b) may refuse to issue a building approval certificate in respect of the unauthorised building work.

(5) A building approval certificate may be issued subject to such conditions as are specified in it.

1. Section 374AAD gives a right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for the review of:
   • a refusal to approve plans and specifications under s 374(1);
   • a refusal to issue a building approval certificate under s 374AA; and
   • the conditions imposed under s 374 or s 374AA.
2. Section 374A deals with demolition licences.
3. Section 374B permits, in effect, 'building work' (not a defined term) to be performed without approval where there is an emergency endangering any person, building or structure, provided that as soon as practicable after commencement, written notice is served on the local government.
4. Section 375 provides, in effect, inter alia that no person shall 'build', 'take down', 'amend, alter, extend, enlarge', or 'add to' or 'repair' a building, or make an excavation in connection with the doing of those things, or do anything by which a street, way or other public place may be obstructed or rendered dangerous or inconvenient to persons passing on or near it, without giving the local government three days written notice of the person's intention and putting up a proper hoarding or fence to the satisfaction of the local government.
5. Division 3 of pt XV contains s 378 and s 379. Section 378 provides, inter alia, that the local government may pull down a hoarding or fence which is not kept in 'good repair'. Section 379 addresses the situation where a person has erected a hoarding or fence which damages, for example, a footpath and where there has been a failure to 'make good and repair' the footpath.
6. Section 399(4) provides, inter alia, that despite anything in the Act to the contrary the local government may by a written licence permit the 'erection' of a building under such restrictions and for such time as it specifies.
7. Division 9 of pt XV is headed 'Notice of required alteration'. Section 401(1) provides, in general terms, that at any time during, or after, the erection of a building, the local government may give written notice of anything in the construction of the building:

(b) which is not in compliance with the approved plans and specifications;

(d) which has been carried out without permission where permission was required;

and requiring the builder or owner to 'pull down or so alter the building as to remove the cause of the objection'.

1. Under s 401(1a) the local government is not to issue a notice under s 401(1)(b) (ie non-compliance with approved plans and specifications) or under s 401(1)(c) (where work has been done without the required permission) if a 'building approval certificate' under s 374AA has been issued or, in the specified circumstances, where such a certificate has been applied for but not finally refused.
2. Division 9A is headed 'Unlawful works' and contains s 401A which deals, in effect, with stop work notices issued by the local government where works are underway. Section 401A(1) refers to the service of a notice on the builder. Section 401A(3) also provides for service on the owner. Subsections (1), (5) and (7) of s 401A have been set out earlier at [3] above. Section 401A(1) addresses the situation where, in contravention of the Act, a building is being 'constructed, erected, adapted, amended, enlarged, added to, or repaired or taken down'.
3. Divisions 11 and 12 of pt XV deal with dangerous and neglected buildings respectively. They include provisions to the effect that the local government may, in certain circumstances, serve a notice on the owner or occupier of the building, requiring them to 'secure, or repair' the building (s 403(4) and s 404) and 'put the building or part into such state of repair and good condition as is to the satisfaction of the local government' (s 408(1)).
4. By s 433, 'local laws' may be made under the 1995 Act with respect to enumerated matters.

The Building Act 2011 (WA)

1. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that relevant provisions of pt XV of the Act were repealed by s 153 of the 2011 Act. (Section 153 is not in the latest version of the 2011 Act.)
2. The 2011 Act is materially different in its terms. By s 3 of the 2011 Act 'building work' is defined to mean, inter alia, the 'renovation, alteration, extension, improvement or repair of a building'. Section 9 of the 2011 Act provides, in effect, that a person must not do 'building work' unless, inter alia, a building permit is in effect for the building work, or a building permit is not required for the building work under pt 5 or regulations or an order mentioned in pt 5 div 1. Part 5 of the 2011 Act includes s 66 and s 67 of the 2011 Act. By s 66, regulations may provide that a building permit is not required for building work of the kind specified by the regulations, including, without limitation, building work that is low in value; or that has a low level of risk in relation to the safety of users of the building or members of the public; or that does not require monitoring by a permit authority; or in a rural or remote area. By s 67, the Minister may, amongst other things, exempt from the operation of s 9(a), either conditionally or unconditionally, building work of the kind specified in an order under that provision. The Building Regulations 2012 (WA), made pursuant to the 2011 Act, make provision for a building permit not to be required for various types of building work (pt 6 and sch 4 to the Building Regulations 2012).
3. Contrary to the Town's submissions, the 2011 Act provides no guidance to the proper construction of s 374(1)(b) of the Act.

1. The High Court of Australia has iterated, and reiterated, that the starting point and ending point for the task of statutory construction is the statutory text. The context, including legislative history and extrinsic materials, has utility only to the extent that it assists in fixing the meaning of the statutory text: Thiess v Collector of Customs [2014] HCA 12 [22] (the court); Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 87 ALJR 98, 107 [39] (the court); Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27, 46 - 47 [47] (Hayne, Heydon, Crennan & Kiefel JJ). The duty of a court is to give the words of the statutory provision the meaning that the legislature is taken to have intended them to have. Ordinarily, but not universally, that meaning will correspond with the grammatical meaning of the provision: Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 [78].
2. A number of observations may be made about s 374(1)(b) of the Act. First, the words 'amend, alter, extend or enlarge' are ordinary words of common usage. Neither party contended that they should be given any technical meaning or anything other than their ordinary meaning. Also, neither in the context in which those words appear in s 374(1)(b) nor in the context of the Act as a whole, would there appear to be any reason to assign a meaning to the word 'alter' in s 374(1)(b) other than its natural and ordinary meaning.
3. As noted earlier, the Town referred to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd ed), which defines 'alter' to mean 'to make otherwise or different in some respect, without changing the thing itself; to modify'. Similarly, the Macquarie Dictionary (5th ed) defines the word 'alter' to mean 'to make different in some particular; modify' and the word 'alteration' to mean 'a change; modification'.
4. When the ordinary meaning of 'alter' is applied to s 374(1)(b), the provision relevantly means, in effect, that in respect of the structure of a building already erected, no person shall change or modify the structure of the building, or commence or proceed with a change or modification of the structure of the building, until the requisite application has been made and approval given.
5. Secondly, s 374(1)(b) emphasises, by its opening phrase, that it is the 'structure' of the building and not the building itself, with which the prohibition is concerned.
6. Thirdly, the word 'structure' is also an ordinary word of common usage and neither party contended that it had some technical meaning. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary definition of 'structure' includes 'the arrangement and mutual relation of the constituent parts of a whole; composition, make-up, form'. The Macquarie Dictionary definition includes 'arrangement of parts, elements or constituents'. As applied to a 'building already erected', the word 'structure' in s 374(1)(b) seems to denote the essential constituent elements or parts of the building which, in combination, give it its essential form and nature. It would seem to us to include, in relation to a building with a roof, the roof of the building.
7. Fourthly, where Parliament has preceded the word 'alter' by the word 'amend', and followed it by the words 'extend or enlarge', read as a whole the language of the provision tends to indicate that its intended ambit was not a narrow one (although its scope could not, of course, exceed that derived from a proper construction of the collocation of words used).
8. Fifthly, by virtue of s 373(4), the terms of s 374(1)(b) apply to a building notwithstanding that its roof or covering has been removed or has fallen in, or that the building has not been completed or, having been completed, part of it has been wholly or partly demolished, removed or become ruinous, or that the building is a building of a type that does not have a roof or covering.
9. Sixthly, the Act thereby contemplates that a building without a roof, or a ruinous building, including a building where the roof has fallen in, may have a 'structure' which may be 'amended, altered, extended or enlarged' for the purposes of s 374(1)(b).
10. Seventhly and consequently, in relation to a building of a type without a roof or a ruinous building, including one where the roof has fallen in, s 374(1)(b) invites a comparison between the 'structure' of the building in that state or condition, and the structure of the building as a result of the execution of the works said to constitute the alleged 'amendment, alteration, extension, or enlargement'. For example, there would seem to us to be little doubt that if the building were of a type without a roof at all, then to construct and erect a roof for it would be to 'alter' the structure of that building. It is difficult to see why the same conclusion would not also ordinarily follow if, for example, the building in question had a roof which had fallen in, and the works involved the construction and erection of a new roof. (This point is addressed further in dealing with the respondent's particular submissions in [68] below.)
11. Eighthly, s 374(1), where it applies, requires, amongst other things, the provision of a copy of the 'specifications of, and a plan showing clearly, the building ... or the amendment, alteration, extension or enlargement proposed to be made'. The word 'specification' in its ordinary meaning includes 'a statement of particulars; a detailed description setting forth the dimensions, materials, etcetera, for a proposed building, engineering work or the like' (Macquarie Dictionary).
12. Having made those initial observations as to the meaning of s 374(1)(b) of the Act, it seems to us, with respect, that the primary judge erred in approaching his construction of the provision on the basis that the provision creates a necessary dichotomy between 'repairs' and 'alterations'. It may be accepted that as a matter of language, the word 'repair' is not a synonym for the word 'alter', and the provision should not be read as if it were. However, the provision is to be construed having regard to the actual language used. A construction of the word 'alter' which necessarily excludes any work which may be described as repair from the scope of its operation has no foothold in the actual language used. The statutory question, relevantly, is whether the work alters the structure of the building, not whether the work is by way of repair. Although the word 'repair' appears in other sections of the Act such as s 401A(1), this context does not require the word 'alter' in s 374(1)(b) to be construed as though an exception were carved out for works in the nature of 'repairs'.
13. When, properly construed, the provision is applied to the subject matter in question in any particular case, the work, even though in the nature of repair, may be of such a nature or character that the structure of the building is altered by the execution of the work. Whether or not that is so will, at least in marginal cases, require close attention to the precise facts and circumstances of the particular case (cf W Thomas & Co Pty Ltd v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [1965] HCA 54; (1965) 115 CLR 58, 72). On the other hand, other works which involve repairs to the building may never constitute an alteration of the structure of the building.
14. As noted earlier, his Honour said that s 374 is 'principally' a 'planning measure rather than a building supervision measure'. He also said the 'power over the construction of buildings which tend to render the building unsafe or dangerous is in s 374(1)(b)' [36] - [37]. It might perhaps be thought that those two propositions do not sit comfortably together. In any event, it appears to us that s 374 is not 'principally' concerned with planning measures (in the sense of setbacks and the like), as opposed to building supervision measures. If it were, it would be unlikely that the 'specifications' for the works would be required. As noted earlier, 'specification', in its ordinary meaning, signifies, in this context, a detailed description setting forth the dimensions and materials of the proposed works. Also, when s 374(1) is read in the context of pt XV as a whole (including s 374(1b) read with s 401(1)), it would appear to us that s 374(1)(b) includes substantial considerations in the nature of 'building supervision measures' (to use his Honour's terminology). At least one of its primary objects appears to be the supervision of building work to ensure its quality, reliability and safety insofar as the work changes or modifies the structure of the building.
15. In determining whether any particular works constitute an alteration of the structure of a building, the works should, at least ordinarily in our view, be viewed as a whole and consideration be given to the impact of the totality of the works in question.
16. In this case, the works in question involved a modification of the existing structure of the building judged from the position of its ruinous state immediately prior to the commencement of the works, in that the works involved the elevation of a section of the roof, and the repositioning of one of its walls. The work was plainly not insubstantial and the magistrate found that in the building's state of disrepair and dangerous condition 'it was not simply a case of replacing like for like' (see [15] above). The work also included the installation of additional vertical struts and additional collar ties within the roof which had not previously been there even before it began to fall into its ruinous state.
17. In our respectful opinion (and subject to a consideration of the respondent's particular submissions referred to below), these matters indicate that the magistrate was not shown to be in error in concluding that there was an alteration within the meaning of s 374(1)(b) by the execution of the works in question.
18. We now turn to the respondent's specific submissions referred to in [23] above. It is correct to say that s 374(1)(b) does not expressly mention the word 'repair' and for that reason, the word 'alter' in s 374(1)(b) should not be read as if it did. Nevertheless, as indicated earlier, close attention may be required to the facts and circumstances, in marginal cases, to determine whether certain work in the nature of repair work is of a nature and character that alters the structure of the building.
19. As to the Building Regulations 1989 (WA), both the respondent and the appellant sought to draw upon the terms and language of the Building Regulations to construe the Act. That course is impermissible as the Building Regulations are subordinate to the Act. As to the contention that the Town's submissions conflate the 'structure' to which s 374(1)(b) refers with 'structural repairs', it is evident from the foregoing reasoning that we do not accept the Town's contention that every repair to the structure of a building necessarily involves the alteration of the structure of a building within the meaning of s 374(1)(b).
20. Although the primary judge said that the work in question, including by admission from the Town, was repair work and had not been shown to constitute an 'alteration' within the meaning of s 374(1)(b), it seems to us, with respect, that his Honour's starting point was that the provision contains a distinction between repair work and alterations. As we have indicated, that, with respect, seems to involve a preconception of the meaning of the provision which is not grounded in its language.
21. Insofar as the respondent contends that the works included the installation of additional vertical struts and collar ties within the roof which had previously not been there in order to improve or strengthen the structure of the roof, we are unable to accept that, as a matter of construction, the word 'alteration' necessarily excludes any changes or modifications of the structure which the owner or builder considers to be beneficial or an improvement. If the works do alter the structure of the building, the section requires approval subject to the provision of the plans and specifications, even if the builder or owner might consider the works to be beneficial.
22. As to the point at which a comparison is to be made when judging whether the works alter the structure of a building, we are unable to accept the respondent's contention that s 374(1)(b) requires comparison between the property as shown to be approved under its original licence with its position after the works have been undertaken. That is essentially for three reasons. First, it does not refer to 'amend, alter, extend or enlarge' the structure of the building as shown in the 'approved plans for the building'. Rather, it simply refers to amending, altering, extending or enlarging the 'structure' of the 'building' which is 'already erected' on land in the district. Secondly, the respondent's submissions seem to us to be inconsistent with the intended operation of s 374 having regard to the provisions of s 373(4) of the Act. Thirdly, in circumstances where much of the housing stock in Perth may be taken to have been constructed or altered from time to time even before the commencement of the Act in 1961, it would seem unlikely that Parliament would have intended that earlier licences (if any) should provide the relevant comparator for the purposes of s 374(1)(b).
23. Nor do we accept the respondent's contention that the word 'specifications' in s 374(1) refers to the specifications provided to a local government when the building was originally constructed or amended, altered, extended or enlarged at some earlier time in the life of the building. It seems to us to be plain on any ordinary reading of s 374, that the word 'specifications' refers to the specifications which must be accompanied by an application for a building licence which the requirements of s 374(1)(a) or s 374(1)(b) have triggered.
24. Having read carefully all of the respondent's written submissions, there is nothing in them which would lead us to any different conclusion from the one referred to in [63] above. Many of the submissions are expressed in intemperate language involving a criticism of the motives of the Town and do not directly address issues as to the proper construction and application of s 374(1)(b). However, one final matter should be noted. In the course of oral submissions, the respondent impliedly suggested, or perhaps hinted, that he had undertaken the works on behalf of the elderly lady in late October 2010 because the Town had issued a notice to her dated 14 May 2010 under s 139 of the Health Act 1911 (WA) which required certain repairs to be carried out to the house, including the roof. The point, if any, of this implied suggestion was not developed formally through a notice of contention, or otherwise informally developed. It is not clear whether and to what extent it was raised before the learned primary judge. Certainly, his Honour's reasons make no reference to it. However, we are satisfied that the implied suggestion can have no bearing on the proper disposition of the appeal.
25. In this regard, having examined the transcript before the magistrate, the evidentiary position with respect to the notice dated 14 May 2010 appears to be as follows. The Town's health department had issued the notice under s 139 of the Health Act dated 14 May 2010. The elderly lady's son contacted the Town having ascertained the likely cost of carrying out the works. The estimated cost was $55,000 and the son said that they could not afford the repairs. He requested the Town to have the building demolished. The Town agreed to do so at its expense, but subject to taking a charge over the property. The demolition notice was issued dated 14 October 2010. The respondent wrote to the Town on 14 and 15 October 2010. His letters of 14 October 2010 and 15 October 2010 referred to the demolition notice. Although the respondent did not give evidence at the hearing before the magistrate (nor did he call the elderly lady or her son), it appears from the evidence of one of the Town's officers that the demolition notice was challenged in the State Administrative Tribunal and that the respondent was involved in that matter before the Tribunal. The cross-examination by the respondent of the Town's officer in this regard was as follows.

Now, you were aware then that the matter was taken to SAT, the State Administrative Tribunal, to try and prevent the demolition?---I am aware of that and I have attended SAT and - - -

And who was it that was a primary behind that ...? The health department are the ones that served the notice. The health department - - -

How convenient. You attended but they served it so you don't know now?---I do know because I attended - - -

If you could explain?---I attended SAT - - -

Who was the primary driver? The health department, I said that.

Who was the primary driver for - on [the elderly lady's] behalf?---You [ie, the respondent].

As her acting building surveyor?---Not that it was made mention in the hearing that we attended. It was also brought up at that SAT hearing but I believe you did not give any information as to your relationship with the owner or your relationship with the property albeit subsequent to that a caveat was found listed on the property for $10 which gave, I believe, yourself or a company the right to purchase the property off [the elderly lady] for, I believe, a value of $128,000. At that time the public - - -

...

At that time the Public Trustees were asked to intervene into the matters and affairs of [the elderly lady] because it could be proven that she was not in a state of mind to deal with financial matters and to protect her interest the Public Trustee got involved in the case and during the SAT hearing you were asked to present a number of documents to which you did not and you failed to attend the final outcome of the SAT hearing whereby the Public Trustees once again reiterated to the town - - -

...

That they would like to see the building demolished (GB 234 - 235).

1. The respondent tendered the notice dated 14 May 2010 (GB 357) and the demolition notice dated 14 October 2010 (GB 359).
2. It is evident from these reasons that although we have not accepted a number of the arguments advanced by the Town as to the construction and application of s 374(1)(b), the appeal should succeed. We would allow ground 1.1 insofar as it contends that the judge erred in finding that it was necessary to distinguish between 'repair' and 'alteration' for the purpose of s 374(1)(b) of the Act. We would uphold ground 1.2 to the extent that it alleges that his Honour should have found that the work undertaken by the respondent, even if in the nature of a repair, constitutes an alteration of the structure of the building and requires a building licence under s 374(1)(b) of the Act. We would also uphold ground 1.3 insofar as it contends that the judge should have found that, for the purposes of s 374(1)(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether the structure of the building has been altered, it is necessary to compare the structure of the building immediately prior to the works being carried out with the structure of the building after the works have been carried out.

1. The orders of the learned primary judge should be set aside and the decision of the magistrate restored.