TPO tree taken down with out consent

[daltontrees]

Almost right but:

 

i) the three references to "tree preservation order" need to change to "tree preservation regulations" .....that change is buried in the Planning Act 2008 s13. I have picked up two of the changes but haven't recorded where the third one comes from. However, it makes sense for both to change as there is now nothing in a TPO to comply with - everything has moved to the regulations.

 

ii) You need to add s210(1)c "causes or permits the carrying our of any of the activities in paragraph (a) or (b)" see Planning Act 2008 s13 (2)©

 

As for S210(2)(b) I don't have a record of this being deleted. However, reading the revised (2) there is no point in retaining (2)(b).

 

Isn't life fun!

 

Jon

 

The sort of fun I could do without. I had just taken the laterst Legislation website version and made the latest regulations changes to it. How the heck is anyone meant to know what the rules are? Doesn't it make a mockery of the basic concept of rle of law?

[daltontrees]

That's how I read it too. I wasn't aware of the new legislation either - the TCPA hasn't been updated on legislation.gov.uk or on planningportal.gov.uk

 

It appears to have come into force on 11 March:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/664/introduction/made

 

Thanks, I hadn't been able to see that when I looeked last week.

 

For the picky, it came into effect the day after it was made therefore 12th March. And then communicated largely by telepathy.

[Jon Heuch]

The sort of fun I could do without. I had just taken the laterst Legislation website version and made the latest regulations changes to it. How the heck is anyone meant to know what the rules are? Doesn't it make a mockery of the basic concept of rle of law?

 

Ha ha well there was a recent case Distinctive Props v DCLG [2015] EWHC 729 (Admin) recently circulated in which the judge summarised the TPO law clause by clause. Even he missed out the addition of 210(1)©.....and the case involved a TPO prosecution!

 

So a judge can't get it right! I wonder what they rely on?

 

I had to check again but how do I know that somewhere someone hasn't added and then deleted 210(1)©?

 

Jon