Nuisance parking / advertising

fred

unread,

Jan 29, 2015, 1:22:47 PM1/29/15

to

I might be an old curmudgeon, but this seems to annoy me.

The parking of a large van/pickup/truck with a huge "sandwich board"
ad on the back; and leaving it there for weeks (literally).

The current example carries the name "1st Builders" and is located in
the layby on the A10 near the lights at the turn off to the old
barracks near Waterbeach.

I think it's been there the best part of a month.
Is this legal ?
ISTR a landscaping company seem to use the same tactic in a Milton
layby.

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,

Jan 29, 2015, 2:03:17 PM1/29/15

to

In article <uutkcadctvt8qnupe...@4ax.com>, fr...@fred.com

Laybys never used to have parking controls which would stop that. I believe
some now do, precisely because of such tricks.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Tim Ward

unread,

Jan 29, 2015, 2:07:23 PM1/29/15

to

On 29/01/2015 18:22, fred wrote:
>
> I think it's been there the best part of a month.
> Is this legal ?
> ISTR a landscaping company seem to use the same tactic in a Milton
> layby.

Last I heard, which was some years ago and almost certainly not
authoritative and could in fact simply be urban myth, there *are* some
legal tools that can be used, but they take months, and the day before
they're due to take effect the perp just moves the advertisement a few
yards and the process has to start all over again. So nobody bothers.

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

CWatters

unread,

Jan 30, 2015, 2:57:22 PM1/30/15

to

On 29/01/2015 18:22, fred wrote:

What's the speed limit there?

https://www.gov.uk/waiting-and-parking/parking-at-night-248-to-252

249
All vehicles MUST display parking lights when parked on a road or a
lay-by on a road with a speed limit greater than 30 mph (48 km/h).

250

Cars, goods vehicles not exceeding 1525 kg unladen weight, invalid
carriages, motorcycles and pedal cycles may be parked without lights on
a road (or lay-by) with a speed limit of 30 mph (48 km/h) or less if
they are:

at least 10 metres (32 feet) away from any junction, close to the kerb
and facing in the direction of the traffic flow
in a recognised parking place or lay-by.

Although I doubt anyone would enforce it.

CWatters

unread,

Jan 30, 2015, 3:01:09 PM1/30/15

to

On 29/01/2015 18:22, fred wrote:

It seems they need consent...

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/advertisments/enforcement-against-specific-unauthorised-advertisements/

Quote:

Advertisements on vehicles or trailers parked in fields, on verges or in
lay-bys require express consent. Only when the vehicle is used as a
moving vehicle and is not used principally for the display of
advertisements is any advertisement on it lawful without express consent.

Tim Ward

unread,

Jan 30, 2015, 4:06:09 PM1/30/15

to

On 30/01/2015 20:00, CWatters wrote:
>
> It seems they need consent...

Planning enforcement process is long and slow and tedious. Some of its
stages go like this:

(1) Someone has to complain to the planning authority (PAs can't
necessarily afford to employ people to go round looking for trouble
these days, it's likely to be a reactive only service).

(2) When it comes to the top of the pile, enforcement officer writes to
developer (if they can find them! - which could be a separate game all
by itself) inviting them to regularise the situation by applying for
retrospective permission. With a deadline, during which period the ad
remains in place.

(3) An application might be made, but that seems unlikely as a fee is
payable. If an application *is* made, it can have various "accidental"
omissions and errors, so that it has to go backwards and forwards
several times, over several months, before it is accepted as a valid
application. Then it goes onto a case officers pile, and there should be
(but isn't always) a decision within another two months, during which
time the ad remains in place. Let's assume that the decision is a
rejection: the developer has, so far, bought themselves six months at
the cost of a not-very-expensive application fee. But it gets better -
they can appeal, and that's another few months until the appeal gets
dismissed.

(4) So, after a failed appeal or after a failure to put in a
retrospective application, in due course, if they notice or there's
another complaint, the PA can start issuing statutory notices requiring
the developer to undo the development. With deadlines, during which
periods the advertisement can remain in place.

(5) Should the developer choose not to comply with the statutory
notices, the PA can take them to court. With a delay until the hearing,
and various deadlines involved in the court processes, during which time
the advertisement remains in place.

So, OK, after a year or three it is theoretically possible that the
developer can be sent to prison for contempt of court, but more likely
is they'll just move the trailer to the next layby, at which point the
process starts again from the beginning. So long as someone bothers to
complain again.

And this is all your tax money being spent. Good value or not, d'you think?

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

Alan

unread,

Jan 30, 2015, 5:04:39 PM1/30/15

to

Might be cheaper and easier for the PA just to erect a screen in front of
the ad :-)

--
Alan

Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Tim Ward

unread,

Jan 30, 2015, 5:19:21 PM1/30/15

to

On 30/01/2015 22:04, Alan wrote:
>>
>> And this is all your tax money being spent. Good value or not, d'you
>> think?
>
> Might be cheaper and easier for the PA just to erect a screen in front
> of the ad :-)

Trouble is that'd need planning permission ... and council officers have
this intensely irritating and inconvenient habit of refusing direct
instructions to do something dodgy ...

--
Tim Ward
www.brettward.co.uk

Roland Perry

unread,

Jan 30, 2015, 5:40:16 PM1/30/15

to

In message <cj2a1u...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:06:03 on Fri, 30
Jan 2015, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>(1) Someone has to complain to the planning authority (PAs can't
>necessarily afford to employ people to go round looking for trouble
>these days, it's likely to be a reactive only service).

I never cease to be amazed at the ability of all kinds of officials to
go about their normal business (even the commute to work) apparently
with their eyes closed.

There's a roadsign in Ely which a vandal has rotated by 90 degrees on
its post. The effect is to make it appear that on the main road you are
driving towards a No-Entry sign on the nearside only. It must have been
like that for upwards of a year now.

Here's the Streetview, which is as recent as Nov 2014:
http://goo.gl/maps/O1YaE
--
Roland Perry

unread,

Feb 26, 2015, 10:01:35 AM2/26/15

to

In message <b73db21a-da69-4fdd...@googlegroups.com>, at
06:38:19 on Thu, 26 Feb 2015, RobertL <rober...@yahoo.com> remarked:

>> There's a roadsign in Ely which a vandal has rotated by 90 degrees on
>> its post. The effect is to make it appear that on the main road you are
>> driving towards a No-Entry sign on the nearside only. It must have been
>> like that for upwards of a year now.
>
>What would happen if you put it right? Would some offence have been committed?

There might be something prohibited about it like "interfering with a
road sign" - even though one would be correcting it. Although if the
result was that it bent, or slipped down the post, it could be
embarrassing.

--
Roland Perry

rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk

unread,

Feb 26, 2015, 12:53:14 PM2/26/15

to

In article <jS$qJsCXN...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland

One of the "No Motor Vehicles" signs at the Burleigh St/Adam and Eve St
junction keeps being turned towards the wall of the Red Cross shop. When I
lived in Grafton St I was forever putting it straight.

--
Colin Rosenstiel