Signs in an unadopted lane ( ownership unknown since 1809)

exongrad

This  concerns an unadopted lane in Taunton. It is about 100 yards long and narrow. In 2020 I put together a dossier of research from the Land Registry,   the  county records  depository and planning authority files. No evidence was found  of the current ownership of the lane after  1804-1809.  The MP used this to write to the DVLA. As a result, UK Parking Patrol Office Ltd  n view of "the complex legal position” ceased operation in that lane and cancelled all PCNs. Recently the local trader has engaged Horizon Parking to control parking.

The signs below have been recently put up in the same lane.

The first  sign is on the driver’s left entering the lane. The driver will not readily see it as often a large vehicle is parked in front and, in an case, the driver is looking out for pedestrians crossing the lane into the public car park on the right,

The second sign is on the right,

 

high up on a lamp post on the public car park. The small text is not easily read by a pedestrian let alone a motorist sitting in a vehicle. The third sign is a little further down on another lamp post.

 

The Quakers are inconsiderately  letting their garden trees over grow the sign.

The last sign is on the trader’s garage at the far end of the lane.

 

 

The last pic is  about cameras for which there is no planning permission in a conservation area :

  

 None of the signs warn that CCTV footage   will be used to obtain keeper data from the DVLA. All of the above signs are larger than 0.3 m sq  and    have no planning permission. The two on lamp posts in the adjoining public car park do not have the consent of the   council.

 Advice will be welcome. Do you agree that all the large signs are non-compliant with the BPA Code and that, in any case, they contain forbidding language ?  If appeals are not upheld by Horizon, are they likely to succeed at POPLA ? I note that POPLA decisions tend to allow on the easiest ground.

Am I correct that Horizon Parking  does not use POFA Schedule 4 in Notices to Keeper?

Please feel free to use the photos in the evidence sent to DLU.

Coupon-mad

Yes re the last question.  ALL appellants should appeal as keeper telling Horizon to get lost as it's going to be non-PoFA PCNs here unless Horizon change the habit of a lifetime.

Thanks for the photos, although what we need for the DLUHC is photos of unmanaged car parks or shop fronts with bays, or self-created signs without a £penalty.

Or Hospitals or supermarkets with £70 or lower.

"The last pic is  about cameras for which there is no planning permission in a conservation area"

Report that to the Planning Team.

Also report any poles with free-standing ANPR or other cameras, as these poles require Planning Permission AIUI.  I can't see that permission being retrospectively granted, especially in a conservation area and with your evidence if lack of an owner, which suggests there are public rights of way or an easement by prescription, after decades of use.

KICK UP A STINK!

Half_way

you need to refer to the signs as advertising.
what is your relationship to this land?
is it somewhere you need to access) cross etc in order to get to and from a property?

exongrad

Thank you, coupon-mad, for your crisp advice, The planning chairman is aware of  the issue but lacks enforcement staff for   low level infringements. Stopping the signs is only one line of attack. Short term we will advise appealing on the non-POFA point until Horizon realise the game is up, failing which I will go back to the DVLA using the 2020 material.

 Thanks for comments, Half_way. All the  occupiers need access to the rear of their properties off this lane including Quakers and the hirers of their meeting house at the end. Quakers have been parking horse and traps in this lane since BEFORE the Prescription Act 1832 and motor cars within living memory for over 40 years !
 

Half_way

Ok, so If you have access to the land and over it, a my thoughts would be to remove the signage as it has been put up without permission  - you should get in tough with the Quakers if the sign is on their land and ask them if they will be happy for you to remove it.

 That is assuming that everything is as you have said

Fruitcake

Pole mounted ANPR scameras and control boxes need planning permission. Signs greater than 0.3m2 need Advertising Consent.
The relevant legislation is The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, which refers to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Private parking signage is not listed under any exemption in the 2007 Regulations, so it requires advertising consent.

Not having Advertising Consent is a breach of para 12 of the PoFA 2012, and more importantly, not having it is a criminal offence, although only the council can do anything about it.

The "local trader" who employed the PPC need to be made aware they are jointly liable for the actions of their agent and therefore are also committing a criminal offence.
Local media should be made aware, and there is nothing stopping responsible citizens from sticking notices (less than 0.3m2) to the signs pointing out that their presence is illegal, and directing motorists to this forum.

exongrad

hello Half_way - none of the advertisements are on Quaker property. As peaceable folk, we would not take them down but are willing to use the law to get the offenders to take  them down.

 Fruitcake - than you for suggestions but I doubt that the Council will act quickly at all. In a formal defence I would put the PPC to prove that they have the necessary consents.

No one has commented about the forbidding language of the adverts.  

Half_way

Another option would be to treat the signs as you would with a trespassers will be shot sign, and use the land as you always have done.
 Should anything happen, go at it with a company against the landowner, and a GDPR breach.

Unfortunately you will need to be/ must be pro active in dealing with this, and if the land is as you say possibly even removing the signs, or telling the person who contracted the parking company to do so, giving them an ultimatum do it by x or we will do it for you.

 If you do nothing, and avoid any confrontation at all costs there is a risk that the trader could claim adverse possession of thd land ( the signs could well be the start of this process) and with it you will lose access to the land irrespective of how long it has been used for, and the trader could claim it from under your feet 
Google adverse possession uk for more.
you need to act, or loose access/ use of the land

exongrad

You are right to advise caution but adverse possession is not a likely issue here. 12 frontagers have had easements of necessity since at least 1809 (and Quakers since 1693 ) whereas the trader causing the trouble has only been here for 6 years.

Half_way

The do noothing for a quite life approach is one that often leads to upset.

 At the very least a letter to the trader stating that the signs that they have errected are irrelevant and will be ignored, and that any attempt by the traders agents - the parking company to access and process personal data as  a result of using the land will be seen as a breach of GDPR ( no valid reason to process personal data) for which the trader as principal will be jointly liable for

date it and keep a hard copy, and ask if others affected by this to also send a letter of objection

exongrad

oh no,  Half-way , I am not doing nothing for a quiet life. If you look back to the original photos on my first post, you will see two Horizon  signs on lamp posts in the adjoining public car park. The attached photo  taken today shows them gone !

 I emailed the Chairman of the Council Highways and Transport Committee last week and this is the result. A nasty shock for the trader.  This severely weakens the signage on the site.  The next step is to get the planning office to take enforcement  action against the remaining signs. That is rather a long shot so I intend to write direct to DVLA to get them to halt Horizon in their tracks as they did with UKPPO three years ago.