Planning rules for car park signs

Loadsofchildren123 · 28 April 2017 at 4:57PM

Maths..... never my strong point!

There isn't anything saying the measurement is the total combined area of the signs.

But the provision about illumination is interesting - signs have to be illuminated to make them visible and to communicate the contract terms when it's dark - but the deemed consent doesn't apply if the signs are illuminated.

Loadsofchildren123 · 28 April 2017 at 5:00PM

And the 2(A) exemption is signs which are warnings or directions - not signs that are there to try to create a contract. If they are "warnings" then they are forbidding, not contractual, surely?

Loadsofchildren123 · 14 June 2017 at 11:47AM

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?

Loadsofchildren123 · 14 June 2017 at 6:44PM

Bumping this in the hope of some views - see post above. What do you all think?

Timothea · 14 June 2017 at 7:29PM

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

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).

What do the signs actually say? Can you post up pictures of the signs?

If the signs purport to offer a contract then you should revert to the LA and point out their error. If the signs are forbidding then, yes, you can use that argument in the defence. However, I don't think the opinion of a Planning Officer adds any weight to that defence; judges should understand contract law.

Loadsofchildren123 · 14 June 2017 at 9:15PM

The signs are a bit in between. Some parts I think do satisfy the Beavis "benchmark", but other parts are forbidding.
My first instinct was to drop the planningvissue but then I wondered if it might help persuade a judge that they are non-contractual if the planning authority deems them to be instruction/warning/direction. I agree a judge may think it irrelevant but if it's a lazy judge it might help.

Loadsofchildren123 · 15 June 2017 at 11:46AM

sN2Nn89KHOPqPyZXU9n049IeT3pi07FKtLvNqV5wBXQ?dl=0&size=32x32&size_mode=5

Loadsofchildren123 · 15 June 2017 at 11:47AM

This is the sign. I don't think it's forbidding - there's only one bit that says you mustn't do something.
The better point is that the "term" about the £100 charge is in very small print. This sign, as with the others on the site, is 2.5m high (ground to bottom of sign) and unlit.