Planning rules for car park signs

Coupon-mad · 15 June 2017 at 11:18PM

Not showing on this laptop...not sure why.

Umkomaas · 15 June 2017 at 11:22PM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not showing on this laptop...not sure why.

That Clive Sinclair has a lot to answer for?

Coupon-mad · 15 June 2017 at 11:42PM

Maybe I'm missing an Adobe update, oh well!

Ruurb · 16 June 2017 at 12:28AM

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

A question.

An OP I am helping off forum has made enquiries about some signage and has been told this by the local council (I have added the bold):

"The signs in question fall within Class 2(a) of the classes of advertisements benefiting from deemed consent under the legislation – i.e. notices or signs displayed on buildings or land as a means of identification, direction, or warning. "

This is interesting. The PPC of course bases the entire claim on the assertion that the signage makes an OFFER of a contract and sets out the its terms. This is anything but "a means of identification, direction or warning". This conflicts entirely with the council’s view that they contain wording which can only be deemed to be a means of “Identification, direction or warning”. This description does not and cannot include a contractual offer – a “warning” would obviously be against doing something, ie forbidding and therefore incapable of being an offer, a “direction” likewise cannot be an offer inviting someone to do something (it is an instruction to do or not to do something in a particular way), and “identification” is just that – providing information (eg identifying the ppc or the landowner).

The OP originally included in their defence reference to the illegality of the signage. Obviously that's dead in the water and should now be dropped. But I wonder if this email might be used in a different way to the OP's benefit - ie. to demonstrate that the signage is forbidding and incapable of making any offer and that's what the local planning dept has decided already.

Or is this clutching at straws?

Sweet and Maxwells Planning Law says the following:

Class 2A
permits notices or signs to be displayed as a means of identification, direction or warning. These can include the number or name of a dwelling house, a sign on a field gate, for example, “Please Shut the Gate” or signs or warnings such as “Beware of the Dog”, “Trespassers will be Prosecuted” or “Police Notice, No Parking”. Advertisements in this class must not exceed 0.3 square metres in area, may not be illuminated and are subject to limitations of height and size of lettering.

So it would seem that you are right, but here's more food for thought, has anyone considered whether the signs breach media advertising under the CAP code, or even breach of CPUT?

Loadsofchildren123 · 16 June 2017 at 8:04AM

Thanks Ruurb!!!!
No we haven't looked at this other legislation. Do you know anything about it?
Do you think it's worth saying in the WS that OP has discovered that the LPA considers the signs exempt because...... [what I've said above plus the S&M commentary] which means that they do not consider the signs to make any valid offer? I'm just not sure. Some weak/nervous DJs I think might like that argument - they really need to be given lots of reasons to find in D's favour. Others will disregard it. I agree it's by no means definitive but just wonder if it's worth including.

CM I'll post a Dropbox link to the sign. It was showing yesterday on my work computer but I can't see it now on my phone.

Ruurb · 16 June 2017 at 2:04PM

I suppose it depends on what the full contents of the email is and if there is any scope for it to be interpreted otherwise. If it favours you, then you could perhaps rely on it as hearsay evidence but as you say I think it would depend on the judge.

Assuming the sign your referring to appears to look both prohibited and appear to present an offer of terms and conditions then would you not argue both? For example, if the sign does fall within the deemed consent provisions then it can only amount to a prohibited sign e.g. a warning and any claim would be in trespass. If, in the alternative, the sign is considered as an offer to contract then surely you could argue in that case the erection of the sign itself amounted to a criminal offence because it required permission from the relevant authority and the court should not indulge in allowing claimants to benefit from their unlawful actions. Therefore the sign cannot be relied upon and the defence of illegality should be upheld.

You said originally that the illegality defence was dead in the water but not sure that is the case, unless I've missed something.

As for the CAP code, I was just thinking off the top of my head, not sure if any of it is applicable but may be worth looking into. Wouldn't support you in court but the ASA has powers to force the advertiser to stop using a particular sign or amend it amongst other things. Then again it could amount to nothing.

Loadsofchildren123 · 16 June 2017 at 2:12PM

my original instinct once I saw the email was that the illegality argument was dead in the water. If it's deemed not to require consent, it's not unlawful. But then that leads to the argument that if it's deemed lawful because it is an instruction/warning/direction then it can't be an offer of a contract and the ppc can't have it both ways. The email says this:

I have looked at your photographs and checked the relevant provisions of the advertisement regulations. The signs in question fall within Class 2(a) of the classes of advertisements benefiting from deemed consent under the legislation – i.e. notices or signs displayed on buildings or land as a means of identification, direction, or warning. The signs appear to comply with the conditions and limitations set out therein, in terms of their size, position and absence of illumination, which means that they benefit from deemed consent under the legislation and do not need the express consent of the local planning authority
In these circumstances there is no apparent breach of planning control and the matter cannot therefore be pursued

I am suggesting this para in the WS (the sign was argued to be unlawful as having no ad consent in the defence)

“In my defence, I argued that I believed the signage was unlawful because no advertisement consent had been given and therefore the C was committing a criminal offence under Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 (as amended). I have contacted the local council, and a copy of their email to me is at page x of RH1. The court will note that the council has determined that the signs have deemed planning consent because they amount to “a means of information, warning or direction”. Sweet and Maxwell on Planning states that “These can include the number or name of a dwelling house, a sign on a field gate, for example, “Please Shut the Gate” or signs or warnings such as “Beware of the Dog”, “Trespassers will be Prosecuted” or “Police Notice, No Parking”. Advertisements in this class must not exceed 0.3 square metres in area, may not be illuminated and are subject to limitations of height and size of lettering.” This is incompatible with the Claimant’s assertion that its signs make an offer of a contract: the local planning authority has clearly deemed that they do not (given that it deems them to be for identification/warning/direction). If they did, then they would not fall under the exception and would require advertisement consent (without which they are a criminal offence – and the court should not lend its aid to a Claimant who founds a claim based on an unlawful act pursuant to the doctrine ex dolo malo non oritur actio"

What do you think? Or is it weak and should be left out?

Ruurb · 16 June 2017 at 2:44PM

Its a valid argument and I can't see any reason why it is weak, the planning authority email would appear to back up your argument that the sign is viewed as prohibitive but even if the court disagrees, as you've suggested the sign was erected unlawfully and so for that reason the claimant shouldn't be entitled to claim from its unlawful conduct. It ought to be a lose-lose for the claimant in theory.

Whether you keep it in depends on how many lines of defence you have and for me personally, unless the matter is complex I tend to stick to 2-3 arguments or maybe 4 at a push. My experience is that DJs especially do not like to see every argument thrown hoping something sticks.

MadHatter752 · 16 June 2017 at 4:08PM

Maybe there is already enough arguments LoC123? Interested to hear what you think on this.

Planning rules for car park signs

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free