parking signage - listed building consent

hullensien

I skimmed through the link provided by Mickey666 above - some interesting and detailed things in there. I did pick up on one thing, and that was weighing up the damage against the benefit to the public - there are "no public" to benefit - its private parking with resident permit or a 3 hour guest permit - the public cant park there - fingers crossed on that one
As I said in my initial post, 100's of people have paid out over the years because they haven't challenged the ticket. It has now become apparent consent wasn't sought for the signage, and (the legally minded will correct me if I'm wrong) this is a criminal offence - the basis for the defence the 2 cases that Parking Eye didn't challenge - "no man shall profit from his crime".
What about the Parking Operators and the Landowner? Is it a Police matter involving proceeds of crime - we are talking a substantial amount of money here - 8 years plus - probably at least one PCN paid up per week  - that's £25k minimum.

D_P_Dance

Is the local MP aware of this outrage?

hullensien

yes - he is also the leader of the local council (he is actually dealing with this) - but I'm not sure he is aware of the "potential" criminal aspect

Mickey666

hullensien said:

I skimmed through the link provided by Mickey666 above - some interesting and detailed things in there. I did pick up on one thing, and that was weighing up the damage against the benefit to the public - there are "no public" to benefit - its private parking with resident permit or a 3 hour guest permit - the public cant park there - fingers crossed on that one
As I said in my initial post, 100's of people have paid out over the years because they haven't challenged the ticket. It has now become apparent consent wasn't sought for the signage, and (the legally minded will correct me if I'm wrong) this is a criminal offence - the basis for the defence the 2 cases that Parking Eye didn't challenge - "no man shall profit from his crime".
What about the Parking Operators and the Landowner? Is it a Police matter involving proceeds of crime - we are talking a substantial amount of money here - 8 years plus - probably at least one PCN paid up per week  - that's £25k minimum.

It is certainly the case that unauthorised alterations to a listed property is a criminal offence, but there are all manner of grey areas and not everything will require LBC.  Even more confusing, something that might require LBC for one property might not require it for another property.  It's all to do with altering the 'character' of the property and you can imagine how difficult that sort of thing is to define in law.  Thus, councils employ Historic Building Officers to decide about such things - but even in a room of HBOs there are bound to be some differing views.

I have made many LBC applications and there is a lot of negotiation involved.  I have had English Heritage initially disagree with a proposed alterations but when I've argued my case in greater detail they have conceded that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages as far as the building is concerned.  And that is their primary concern, the building itself and weighing up the pros and cons in the specific context of the building and its setting.  Again, being listed does not automatically mean alterations cannot be made.

I'm just trying to point out that simply erecting a sign in the grounds of a listed property is not automatically going to be a criminal offence.  There are many complicating factors involved.  Also, the chances of a council bringing criminal proceedings against a non-damaging sign is vanishingly small.

I'm not trying to defend the PPC, just pointing out the realities of listed properties and LBC so that people don't clutch at irrelevant straws.

hullensien

What strengthens the case is that Listed Building Consent was applied for and granted in 2001.
However that was for signage ONLY at the entrance - there are now multiple signs around the site. And the previous PPC who displayed signage until very recently did not exist until 2012, so the 2001 LBC was not for his signs.
So if LBC was needed in 2001, then surely they should have had to apply again in 2012 for the previous PPC, and again very recently for the additional signage put up by the new PPC.

Half_way

hullensien said:

yes - he is also the leader of the local council (he is actually dealing with this) - but I'm not sure he is aware of the "potential" criminal aspect

If he is Dealing with this, then he can be made aware of the adversing consent angle.

 it may be of use to make him aware of this thread, plus it wil be another person who could have their eyes opened to the murky world of un regulated private parking companies

Mickey666

hullensien said:

What strengthens the case is that Listed Building Consent was applied for and granted in 2001.
However that was for signage ONLY at the entrance - there are now multiple signs around the site. And the previous PPC who displayed signage until very recently did not exist until 2012, so the 2001 LBC was not for his signs.
So if LBC was needed in 2001, then surely they should have had to apply again in 2012 for the previous PPC, and again very recently for the additional signage put up by the new PPC.

I'd be surprised if a new PPC had to reapply for LBC for slight changes to an EXISTING sign that already had LBC.  After all, what would the difference actually be - just some changes to the wording presumably, so hardly anything that would significantly impinge on the listed property, which is the main issue as far as LBC is concerned.   I'd say this would be clutching at straws.

Completely NEW additional signs, however, would be a very different matter.

hullensien

The LBC was granted in 2001 for one sign at the entrance - I'm not sure who the PPC was at the time
Up until mid 2021 the site was patrolled by Autosec - they had 6 signs up - Autosec didn't exist until 2012 - so the 2001 LBC wasn't for them
Mid 2021 Baysentry Solutions became the new PPC - they have doubled the amount of signs on the site

Fruitcake

One PPC will have different colours and styles and wording on their signs compared to another PPC. One scammer will use black text on yellow background whereas a different scammer will have blue text on a white background. Another will have half a dozen different background colours, a mass of terms and conditions in tiny font, and yet another will have everything in large font except the charge for breaking the Ts and Cs.

However, when I complained to my local council about a scammer reducing the parking time stated by the planning department when advertising consent was granted, they said the consent was for the erection of the signs, not what was written on them.

I suspect this will be different though for LBC where the style and colours of the signs would need to be approved as well as their size, number, and location.

What I don't know is whether LBC is needed for signs as well as advertising consent, or if it is required instead.

Castle

Fruitcake said:

One PPC will have different colours and styles and wording on their signs compared to another PPC. One scammer will use black text on yellow background whereas a different scammer will have blue text on a white background. Another will have half a dozen different background colours, a mass of terms and conditions in tiny font, and yet another will have everything in large font except the charge for breaking the Ts and Cs.

However, when I complained to my local council about a scammer reducing the parking time stated by the planning department when advertising consent was granted, they said the consent was for the erection of the signs, not what was written on them.

I suspect this will be different though for LBC where the style and colours of the signs would need to be approved as well as their size, number, and location.

What I don't know is whether LBC is needed for signs as well as advertising consent, or if it is required instead.

I'm guessing that it would need both if the sign(s) exceeds the maximum size allowed for deemed consent.