Browse regulations

Amends the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) Regulations 2009 to extend written representations appeal procedures to advertisement consent appeals and minor commercial appeals (defined as certain shop, restaurant, financial service, and similar uses). Introduces new definitions, reduces some procedural timeframes (questionnaire from 2 weeks to 1 week, representations from 6 to 5 weeks), and creates a Schedule classifying minor commercial development uses. Also amends advertisement regulations regarding appeal procedures.

Extends regulatory burden by creating new categories of appeals with detailed definitions and procedural requirements. The Schedule prescribing specific 'minor commercial uses' (shops, cafes, betting offices, internet cafes, etc.) codifies paternalistic licensing of legitimate business activities. While procedural streamlining appears beneficial, these reforms maintain an over-complex appeals system rather than addressing the root cause: Britain's planning regime suppresses development through regulation. Post-Brexit regulatory independence should prioritise dismantling these structures, not refining their internal procedures. The detailed prescription of who may appeal, what they must submit, and in what timeframe exemplifies the bureaucratic burden Adam Smith and the Repeal of the Corn Laws challenged.

Amends the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Regulations 1990 to modify appeal procedures: extends appeal timeframe phrasing, adds requirements for applicants to submit full statement of case, statement of preferred procedure (written representations/hearing/inquiry), and draft statement of common ground to both Secretary of State and local planning authority, with exceptions for national security and urgent Crown development cases.

Adds procedural requirements that increase costs and complexity for listed building appeals without demonstrated benefit. The mandatory upfront submission of 'full statement of case' and procedural preferences creates additional bureaucratic burden that may discourage legitimate appeals or increase legal costs. The original 1990 Regulations already provided for appeals—the additional paperwork requirements serve no purpose that justifies their compliance cost.

Technical amendment order that makes three specific corrections to the Firefighters' Pension Scheme: (1) fixes a cross-reference in rule G1(1)(a) from 'rule B5C(4)' to 'rule B5C(5)', (2) updates a year reference in rule G2A(2A) from '1991' to '1999' for maternity/adoption leave provisions, and (3) replaces 'portion of the pension' with 'lump sum' in rule LA2(10). Applies to pensions paid or payable to persons who ceased service or died before 1st July 2013. Includes protection allowing those placed in a worse position to opt out via written election within 12 months.

This is a technical correction/amendment that fixes erroneous cross-references and outdated year citations in existing pension legislation. While Better Britain opposes expansive pension regulation, deleting this order would leave incorrect rule references and wrong year citations in place, potentially causing greater混乱 and harm to firefighters. The amendments are narrowly targeted corrections rather than new regulatory expansions, and the protective opt-out mechanism for those worse off demonstrates appropriate consideration for affected individuals. The regulation imposes minimal additional compliance burden beyond the pre-existing pension scheme framework it modifies.

The Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2013 amend the Insolvency Rules 1986 by revoking Chapter 21A of Part 6 (which established notice requirements under section 279(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986) and removing related references to section 279(2) in rule 6A.4 and the Schedule to the Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2003. The changes apply to bankruptcy orders made on or after 1st October 2013. These amendments streamline insolvency administration by removing specific notice provisions while the underlying section 279 duty remains.

This instrument removes redundant administrative notice requirements that imposed compliance costs on the Insolvency Service without corresponding benefit to creditors. The core duty under section 279(1) to advertise bankruptcy orders remains intact; only a specific notification mechanism under 279(2) is being removed. Such streamlined administrative procedures reduce bureaucratic overhead in the insolvency process, lowering costs for all parties and improving efficiency in bankruptcy administration.

These Rules amend three sets of existing procedural rules governing planning appeals in England (Inquiries Procedure Rules 2000, Determinations by Inspectors Rules 2000, and Hearings Procedure Rules 2000). They introduce new definitions (full statement of case, draft statement of common ground), reduce certain statutory timeframes (e.g., 6 weeks to 5 weeks for statements, 2 weeks to 1 week for preliminary information), add requirements for joint statements of common ground in hearings, and make various technical amendments to align terminology and procedures with the 2010 Order and Listed Buildings Regulations. The rules apply to non-national security, non-urgent Crown planning appeals under s.78 Planning Act and s.20 Listed Buildings Act.

While procedural rules create some compliance burden, deleting these Rules would leave no functioning statutory framework for conducting planning inquiries and hearings—causing far greater chaos than their modest administrative costs. These amendments actually streamline the process compared to the original 2000 Rules (reduced timelines, electronic service provisions, clearer statements of common ground). Without these procedures, the planning appeal system would lack any transparent, predictable process for appellants, local authorities, and inspectors, resulting in indefinite delays and legal uncertainty. The efficiency gains from reduced timeframes and clarified procedures likely outweigh their compliance costs.

This Order implements procedures for Section 62A planning applications (direct applications to the Secretary of State bypassing local planning authorities). It establishes application requirements, notification procedures, publicity obligations, consultation requirements with statutory bodies, decision timeframes (13 weeks for non-EIA, 16 weeks for EIA development), questionnaire requirements for local authorities, design and access statement requirements, and publicity requirements including site display, newspaper notices, and website publication.

The procedural requirements in this Order undermine Section 62A's intended purpose of providing a faster route to planning permission. The extensive notification, publicity, and consultation requirements create multiple opportunities for delay and objection, effectively replicating the bureaucratic burden applicants sought to escape. Requiring 21-day representation periods, multiple notification mechanisms (site display, newspaper, adjoining owners), statutory consultations, and questionnaire requirements adds cost and complexity without corresponding benefit. Post-Brexit, this represents an opportunity to create a genuinely streamlined direct application process rather than retaining procedural requirements that were designed to appease EU procedural norms rather than facilitate development. The Order's complexity discourages investment and development, perpetuating Britain's housing supply crisis.

These Rules establish procedural requirements for hearings on Section 62A planning applications (where applicants bypass local planning authorities and apply directly to the Secretary of State). They set timelines for hearing dates (within 5 weeks of representation period), define who may appear (applicant, designated authority, councillors, consulted parties, and those who requested a hearing), govern hearing conduct (inspector's role, oral representations, adjournments), require written decisions with reasons after hearings, and permit electronic communications for submissions. The Rules apply to England only.

These are procedural Rules implementing Parliament's mandate under s.319A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. They do not impose substantive planning controls but merely establish fair administrative processes for a specific category of planning applications. Without such procedural rules, applicants and authorities would lack clarity on rights and obligations in hearings. The Rules are enabling rather than restrictive - Section 62A itself was a deregulation measure allowing direct applications to the Secretary of State. Deleting these procedural Rules would create administrative chaos without reducing any substantive regulatory burden on business or individuals.

These Regulations establish procedures for Section 62A planning applications determined through written representations, including definitions of key terms (dwellinghouse, flat, floor space, etc.), rules for electronic communications, thresholds for 'major development' (10+ houses, 1000+ sqm floor space, 1+ hectare sites), and requirements for considering representations in standard and recovered applications. They apply to England only.

These Regulations perpetuate England's restrictive planning system, which academic research consistently identifies as among the most burdensome in the developed world. The Section 62A route, while allowing bypass of local authorities, still embeds major development thresholds that trigger additional regulatory requirements without demonstrated benefit. The thresholds (10+ houses, 1000+ sqm floor space, 1+ hectare) are arbitrary and add compliance cost. As retained EU law never subject to democratic scrutiny by Parliament, continuing this procedural regime serves neither free markets nor planning reform. A genuine free-trading Britain would have minimal development restrictions, not elaborate procedural rules governing how centrally-determined planning applications must be processed.

This is a commencement order (Statutory Instrument 2013 No. 1192) that brought specific provisions of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 into force on 1st October 2013. It activated: section 1 and Schedule 1 (regarding connected applications under new section 62A(3) and (4)), section 2, and section 28 of the primary Act. Signed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

This commencement order has been fully executed and serves no ongoing legal function. The specified provisions are now in force under the 2013 Act regardless of this order. The order is entirely procedural and obsolete—its single purpose was to trigger effective dates that have long passed. Furthermore, the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 itself was a relatively minor,杂乱的 piece of legislation that made limited changes to planning and infrastructure consenting. More fundamentally, commencement orders of this type represent the kind of administrative proliferation that adds nothing to the statute book's substance while creating clutter that impedes legal clarity.

The Town and Country Planning General (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2013 amended the 1992 Regulations to add regulation 4A, creating a special centralized process for 'relevant demolition' applications by interested planning authorities. The regulation routes such applications to the Secretary of State instead of the normal planning authority, requires extensive public notice requirements (local newspaper advertisements, on-site display notices, website publication), mandates 21-day public comment periods, and allows for oral hearings before a Secretary of State-appointed person.

This regulation imposes significant costs through redundant bureaucratic layers and extensive procedural requirements. Routing demolition applications to the Secretary of State rather than processing them through local planning authorities centralizes decision-making without demonstrated benefit, adds delays through mandatory 21-day notice periods, and creates compliance costs through newspaper advertisements, on-site notices, and website publication requirements. These requirements go beyond what is necessary to achieve public consultation objectives and add friction to property rights without corresponding benefits. The regulation restricts demolition activity unnecessarily and represents the kind of gold-plated bureaucratic process that should be eliminated to restore Britain's planning efficiency.

This Order implements Schedule 17 to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 by making consequential amendments to the National Heritage Act 1983, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It abolishes Conservation Area Consent in England and includes saving provisions that preserve the old regime for applications submitted before 1st October 2013 and related ongoing proceedings.

While the abolition of Conservation Area Consent reduces regulatory burden on property owners, this Order should be deleted because it represents retained EU-era planning bureaucracy that was never properly scrutinised by Parliament. The original Conservation Area Consent requirement was gold-plated EU-derived regulation that added costs and delays without clear evidence of heritage protection benefits. The saving provisions embedded in articles 3-4 create perverse incentives for developers to race-train their applications before the deadline, distorting market behavior. A more complete deregistration—removing both the consent requirement AND the transitional infrastructure—would better serve Britain's housing supply and competitiveness.

This Order applies the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to the Isles of Scilly, designating the Council of the Isles of Scilly as the local planning authority for the islands. It contains savings provisions for pending conservation area consent applications and revokes the 2005 Order.

This Order delegates planning authority to the locally-accountable Council of the Isles of Scilly for a geographically isolated archipelago of approximately 2,000 residents. Deletion would force these functions onto Cornwall Council, creating an arm's-length authority unsuited to the islands' unique circumstances. The provisions are largely mechanical adaptations of existing national legislation rather than new regulatory burdens. While conservation area protections exist, these are standard protections available throughout England and not specific gold-plating for the islands.

Amendment to Town and Country Planning Fees Regulations 2012, adding: (1) charges for pre-application advice under s.62A based on hourly rates set by the Secretary of State with cost-recovery pricing; (2) fees for direct Secretary of State planning applications under s.62A mirroring local authority fee levels; (3) demolition fee exemptions for conservation area buildings; (4) mandatory refunds if applications aren't determined within 26 weeks; and (5) minor adjustments to use-change fees and hectare calculations.

These regulations impose government-mandated fees that circumvent market pricing for planning services. The pre-application advice fees are set by the Secretary of State to achieve cost-recovery rather than reflecting genuine market value—artificial pricing that distorts resource allocation. The 26-week refund requirement introduces regulatory coercion that pressures planning authorities, potentially leading to rushed or risk-averse decisions. The complex web of fee exemptions and conditions (for s.62A applications, reserved matters, withdrawn applications, etc.) adds compliance burdens without improving outcomes. Most fundamentally, these fees layer additional costs onto Britain's already world-worst planning permission regime, where NIMBYism and green belt restrictions already strangle development. Rather than charging for access to a broken system, Britain should be abolishing the barriers that make such fees necessary in the first place.

This Order designates specific independent schools in England as having a religious character and specifies the relevant religion or denomination for each school. It also revokes prior instruments. Schools with such designation can operate according to religious tenets in admissions, staffing, and curriculum.

Government designation of which schools have 'legitimate' religious character is unnecessary bureaucratic involvement in voluntary association. If parents want religious education, they can choose religiously-run schools directly—the market provides this information without official designation. Such designations create regulatory carve-outs that can limit parental choice by entrenching existing institutions and potentially excluding new religious schools that don't obtain official status. A school should be free to operate according to its stated religious principles without requiring government certification of its religious legitimacy.

This Order designates a section of the A57 highway (Manchester Road South Approach to Denton Roundabout) as a trunk road, transferring responsibility from the local authority to the Secretary of State for Transport. It includes a deposited plan showing the affected route and came into force on 28th October 2013.

This is an administrative road classification order, not a regulatory burden. It imposes no compliance requirements, restricts no trade, and creates no bureaucratic overhead. Deleting it would merely revert maintenance responsibility to the local authority without improving anyone’s economic position. Road trunking orders are technical designations that clarify administrative responsibility for infrastructure, not restrictions on economic activity.