Thanks John, Richard :-)
To be honest, I don't know how the government expects anyone to be able to keep track of all of these changes. As an example, suppose someone asks you the simple question "what is relevant demolition?". To give the full answer, you need to follow ALL of the following steps:
1) Firstly, you need to look at section 196D of the TCPA 1990. However, this section hasn't yet been added to the version of the TCPA 1990 on the government website "www.legislation.gov.uk", so you actually need to look at the following different Act.
2) Secondly, you need to look at section 63 and Schedule 17 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which inserted section 196D into the TCPA 1990. The definition of "relevant demolition" within this Schedule contains a double negative by stating that it's the demolition of a building in a CA that's "not a building to which section 74 of the [LBCA Act 1990] does not apply by virtue of section 75 of that Act".
3) Thirdly, you need to know that the above section and Schedule have come into force by finding the relevant Commencement Order (i.e. 2013 No. 2227 (C. 92)).
4) Fourthly, you need to look at section 75 of the LBCA Act 1990. This section contains a list of 4 exceptions (e.g. listed buildings, ecclesiastical buildings, etc), the last of which is "buildings in relation to which a direction under subsection (2) is for the time being in force".
5) Fifthly, you need to know that paragraph 31 of Circular 01/01 constitutes the above type of "direction". This paragraph sets out a list of 11 further exceptions.
6) Sixthly, you also need to bear in mind the potential effect of paragraph 2(1) of "The Town and Country Planning (Demolition - Description of Buildings) Direction 1995", which excludes certain works from the definition of "development". Unfortunately, this Direction is not available on any government website.
7) Seventhly, when reading the above Direction, you also need to know that paragraphs 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) were found to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal in "R (SAVE Britain's Heritage) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2011] EWCA Civ 334".
Of course, if you then look at the version of the GPDO 1995 on the government website, it will give you the impression that "relevant demolition" is permitted development, unless you're also aware of SIs 2013 No. 2147 and 2013 No. 2435, which are just 2 out of a total of 32 SIs that amend the GPDO 1995!
Perhaps the best illustration of the farcical nature of the legislation regarding demolition is the "Demolition in Wonderland" article by Martin Goodall, which is available towards the end of the following page on his website:
Thanks,
Steve
