Deviation from tpo permission.

[daltontrees]

When the opportunity does arise, along with changing the law to make non-compliance with a TRN a criminal offence, I would suggest changing the words of the offences in s210 from wilful to reckless damage or destruction.

 

Ed

 

I have long thought that, and I am sure I don't need to tell you all the positive benefits that would arise.

 

I can't start a campaign from up here, we have our own difficulties with politicians who are largely clueless and a local authority culture that as far as I can tell has little conviction about its protection of trees.

[Chris at eden]

Indeed it would. The last time there were some changes was just a few years ago, and these led to the 2012 Regs. Changing things again anytime soon on something the politicians see so few votes in, or not supporting their dogma, is very unlikely.

 

When the opportunity does arise, along with changing the law to make non-compliance with a TRN a criminal offence, I would suggest changing the words of the offences in s210 from wilful to reckless damage or destruction.

 

Ed

 

Good idea with the reckless issue Ed, they did it for the wildlife legislation so why not.

 

To be fair they change regulations all the time with as you say the 2012 regs and before that the introduction of the one-app, and so on. Then there was the change to fines on summary conviction now being introduced to TPO's via a completely separate piece of legislation earlier this year. So it can be done, and should be.

 

The fact that felling a tree without consent (or exception) is an offence, but none compliance with the notice that secures its replacement is not an offence just does not makes sense. A five year old could tell you that!!! It make you wonder who writes this stuff. :confused1: