i-Park NFU Mutual Penrith

vivaespana

Ralph-y said:

we would like to see the signs as they do not show on GSV

Ralph

First photo is from their retrospective planning permission application for the lighting/camera columns (no signs mentioned) which amazingly has the wrong road name under the photo - there is no Ulverstone Road in Penrith, I think they mean Ullswater Road. They really should know better as they actually occupy one of the buildings in the location. I have reached out to locals on the facebook page for any more photos of other signage. 

vivaespana

About to send off the template (blue) but a quick question about adding further info about POFA. Would I do it as an add on to the template appeal or wait for court?
Under POFA I know that the NTK should specify the "relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which it relates". The PCN only lists the location as Cromwell Street, Penrith, CA11 7JW but not premises name or way of identifying the exact location.  The Eden district planning register lists 7 "neighbours" under this application, all with the same postcode. 
Somewhat confusingly, vehicle access to these buildings is actually off Ullswater Road anyway.
Should I add any of this in now or wait?

I have foolishly committed the cardinal sin of potentially revealing the driver details to NFU Mutual and the landlord when I sent an appeal to them!   

KeithP

I would be inclined to send the blue text template appeal unchanged.

Of course, send it as the keeper.

vivaespana

Ralph-y said:

is this the road/ car park that runs up the side of the MFU building towards the COOP funeral building with McD's off to the side? If so then you need to get pictures of the (non) signs  asp 

Ralph

Sorry Ralph, missed this one! You are correct, that is the location. There have been hundreds of PCNs issued at various stages it seems - some before planning permission, some when the signs were not particularly adequate, some not relying on POFA and some that do.  I'm guessing they have just been changing tactics as they "get better" at it. This particular one is from July so probably several hundred in......... If I get no joy from the FB page then I don't mind a little day trip up to Penrith to get some photos!

Castle

Whilst the cameras and poles have planning permission; the signs don't have advertising consent, which is a far more serious matter.

Fruitcake

Not having advertising consent is a criminal offence, but only the council can do anything about it. It cannot be granted retrospectively either.
If none exists then complaints should be made to the local council, ideally by everyone affected and all those in the fightback group.
Local press might also be interested.

Looking at the first photo, surely painting white lines on the road to identify the boundary adjacent to the curve of the wet tyre tracks, and painting the words "residents only" or similar would have more effect than putting up scameras.
That way motorists leaving the drive through would realise the parking spaces do are not part of the cafe. Warning notices in Mucky D's not to park nearby might help as well.

Coupon-mad

It looks impossible to tell where that purported 'no stopping zone' starts and ends!

All the car park needed, was a gate...here it is in 2018, in GSV:

https://goo.gl/maps/zvSFaafZbFUec5hw6

So they are pretending the whole area is 'no stopping' but clearly it isn't, because there are cars parked!  There are no double red lines are there? 

This is not appropriate to be run as if it's a no-stopping zone when it's also a car park.   I'd change the template appeal (DON'T say who was driving) and state that the area is wrongly marked if it claims to be a no-stopping zone, because there are no double red lines. There isn't even a clear boundary edge.

I'd remove the stuff about pay & display machines from the template (of course...makes no sense to say it) and also add that thre is no keeper liabilty for 'stopping' because the POFA rights only flow from contractually agreed parking events.

vivaespana

Fruitcake said:

Not having advertising consent is a criminal offence, but only the council can do anything about it. It cannot be granted retrospectively either.
If none exists then complaints should be made to the local council, ideally by everyone affected and all those in the fightback group.
Local press might also be interested.

Looking at the first photo, surely painting white lines on the road to identify the boundary adjacent to the curve of the wet tyre tracks, and painting the words "residents only" or similar would have more effect than putting up scameras.
That way motorists leaving the drive through would realise the parking spaces do are not part of the cafe. Warning notices in Mucky D's not to park nearby might help as well.

I believe Mucky D's now have clear signs up in the drive-thru, but it's only a fairly recent thing. 

vivaespana

Coupon-mad said:

It looks impossible to tell where that purported 'no stopping zone' starts and ends!

All the car park needed, was a gate...here it is in 2018, in GSV:

https://goo.gl/maps/zvSFaafZbFUec5hw6

So they are pretending the whole area is 'no stopping' but clearly it isn't, because there are cars parked!  There are no double red lines are there? 

This is not appropriate to be run as if it's a no-stopping zone when it's also a car park.   I'd change the template appeal (DON'T say who was driving) and state that the area is wrongly marked if it claims to be a no-stopping zone, because there are no double red lines. There isn't even a clear boundary edge.

I'd remove the stuff about pay & display machines from the template (of course...makes no sense to say it) and also add that thre is no keeper liabilty for 'stopping' because the POFA rights only flow from contractually agreed parking events.

Yep, you've touched on many of the points I have been looking at this morning in POFA where EVERYTHING relates to parking - parking charge, unpaid parking charge, single period of parking etc etc (I know I don't need to tell you...). This is the bit that I think is hard for everybody affected to get their head around - to me it seems more a case of if you stop, you will be "fined". There is no invitation to park according to T&Cs eg NFU customers only.......
Legal stuff aside, this is totally the opposite of NFU's claims to be a responsible business for the benefit of the community when simple lines on the "road" or spaces marked NFU ONLY would have caused so much less confusion for the public and therefore much less uproar.  They claim they have resorted to this to prevent anti-social behaviour and dead bodies, but this is by no means preventative and most definitely a punishment.
It's just how I get that accross right now....... But I will be patient and just send the slightly amended blue template with the POFA reference, the rest can be saved for court. I just feel for those that aren't like a dog with a bone like me!

vivaespana

Fruitcake said:

Not having advertising consent is a criminal offence, but only the council can do anything about it. It cannot be granted retrospectively either.
If none exists then complaints should be made to the local council, ideally by everyone affected and all those in the fightback group.
Local press might also be interested.

Looking at the first photo, surely painting white lines on the road to identify the boundary adjacent to the curve of the wet tyre tracks, and painting the words "residents only" or similar would have more effect than putting up scameras.
That way motorists leaving the drive through would realise the parking spaces do are not part of the cafe. Warning notices in Mucky D's not to park nearby might help as well.

I will bring the signage stuff to the attention of the local councillor who is on the FB group as nobody seems to have mentioned them recently, yet I have read the full planning application and cannot see any reference to signage.  I wasn't sure if this was because the signs appear to be on each of the lighting/anpr colums for which they have applied for and received planning permission.......