The Business Improvement Districts (Property Owners) (England) Regulations 2014
Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.
Change 1
14 Veto of BRS-BID proposals
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, the prescribed circumstances are that the relevant billing authority is of the opinion that— (a) the BRS-BID arrangements are likely to conflict to a material extent with any policy formally adopted by and contained in a document published by the authority (whether or not the authority is under a statutory duty to prepare such document); or (b) the BRS-BID arrangements are likely to be a significantly disproportionate financial burden on any person or class of persons (as compared to the other persons with a relevant property interest in the geographical area of the BID) and— (i) that burden is caused by the manipulation of the geographical area of the BID or by the structure of the BRS-BID levy; and (ii) that burden is inequitable; or (c) the BRS-BID proposer has failed to comply with the duty imposed by regulation 13(1)(a). (2) For the purposes of paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, the prescribed period is 14 working days beginning with the day after the day of the ballot. (3) For the purposes of paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, the prescribed matters to which the relevant billing authority shall have regard in deciding whether to exercise its veto are— (a) the level of support (as evidenced by the result of the BRS-BID ballot or re-ballot of a BRS-BID ballot, as the case may be) for the BRS-BID proposals; (b) the nature and extent of the conflict referred to in paragraph (1)(a); (c) in relation to paragraph (1)(b), the structure of the proposed BRS-BID levy and how the financial burden of the BRS-BID is to be distributed amongst persons with a relevant property interest in the geographical area of the BID; (d) the extent to which the BRS-BID proposer discussed the BRS-BID proposals with the authority before submitting the BRS-BID proposals to the authority under regulation 5; (e) the cost incurred by any person up to the end of the period prescribed in paragraph (2) in developing the BRS-BID proposals and canvassing in relation to the BRS-BID proposals; and (f) the nature and extent of the failure referred to in paragraph (1)(c).
14 Veto of BRS-BID proposals
(1) For the purposes of paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, the prescribed circumstances are that the relevant billing authority is of the opinion that— (a) the BRS-BID arrangements are likely to conflict to a material extent with any policy formally adopted by and contained in a document published by the authority (whether or not the authority is under a statutory duty to prepare such document); or (b) the BRS-BID arrangements are likely to be a significantly disproportionate financial burden on any person or class of persons (as compared to the other persons with a relevant property interest in the geographical area of the BID) and— (i) that burden is caused by the manipulation of the geographical area of the BID or by the structure of the BRS-BID levy; and (ii) that burden is inequitable; or (c) the BRS-BID proposer has failed to comply with the duty imposed by regulation 13(1)(a). (2) For the purposes of paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, the prescribed period is 14 working days beginning with the day after the day of the ballot. (3) For the purposes of paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, the prescribed matters to which the relevant billing authority shall have regard in deciding whether to exercise its veto are— (a) the level of support (as evidenced by the result of the BRS-BID ballot or re-ballot of a BRS-BID ballot, as the case may be) for the BRS-BID proposals; (b) the nature and extent of the conflict referred to in paragraph (1)(a); (c) in relation to paragraph (1)(b), the structure of the proposed BRS-BID levy and how the financial burden of the BRS-BID is to be distributed amongst persons with a relevant property interest in the geographical area of the BID; (d) the extent to which the BRS-BID proposer discussed the BRS-BID proposals with the authority before submitting the BRS-BID proposals to the authority under regulation 5; (e) the cost incurred by any person up to the end of the period prescribed in paragraph (2) in developing the BRS-BID proposals and canvassing in relation to the BRS-BID proposals; and (f) the nature and extent of the failure referred to in paragraph (1)(c).
One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".
Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.
How this law is officially changed
Solon does not know this law's official route yet. The proposal is recorded all the same, and the route appears here once its source is added.
A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.
Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.
Sign in to file itThink it through
Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.